During the past six months, the outlook for the National Park System has grown decidedly darker than it had been. Threats to the system's natural resources have grown with the Trump administration's attacks upon environmental regulations, proposed staffing cuts will be numbing if implemented, and there's a heightened prospect of creeping privatization.
Today, in the wake of the National Park Service's 2016 centennial and a record visitation of more than 330 million to the parks, there's an ominous trend of actions by the administration, which has a GOP-majority Congress to push them through, that would negatively impact the parks.
- The president's budget proposal calls for a $1.5 billion cut to the Interior Department, and a nearly $400 million cut to the National Park Service budget. Though the proposal is likely dead upon arrival, will park proponents in Congress be able to block any cuts made by appropriators?
- President Trump has directed the Interior Department to review, and possibly rescind, regulations pertaining to oil and gas drilling in units of the National Park System.
- The administration is looking to expand offshore energy development, something that could impact national seashores.
- In the coming weeks, there's the possibility that Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke will recommend changes in 27 national monuments that the president told him to review for their appropriateness.
- Interior Secretary Zinke has said he wants to turn management of campgrounds on public lands over to private companies, saying the Park Service is good at cleaning toilets, but not running campgrounds. What else might he be thinking of privatizing? Will he be open to pitches that the parks need more lodging? What is his reorganization plan for the National Park Service?
- President Trump wants Congress to repeal the Clean Water Act of 2015, which governs which streams and lakes are protected by the Clean Water Act of 1972. Currently, according to the National Parks Conservation Association, "(M)ore than half of our 417 national park have waterways considered 'impaired' under the Clean Water Act, meaning they do not meet healthy water quality standards for activities like drinking, fishing and swimming."
Frequent readers of these pages are well aware of many, if not all, of these issues. But not everybody is.
In June I had the opportunity to stand in for Dr. Alfred Runte in Zion National Park to address groups from Tauck Tour's Spirit of The Desert: The National Parks of the Southwest tour, a 10-day trek through Arches, Canyonlands, Bryce Canyon, Zion, and the North Rim of Grand Canyon National Park organized with the help of Ken Burns and Dayton Duncan. My talk revolved around the many issues confronting the national parks today: Underfunding by Congress, extremely low morale, privatization, worker harassment issues, the maintenance backlog, crowding in the parks, and more.
Surprisingly, these issues were news to more than a few of those in the audience.
Park advocates need to be discussing these issues more often, and to an increasingly larger network of friends and associates. Congressional representatives should be reminded -- often -- of what the national parks mean to America and Americans. Letters are good, phone calls can be better, face-to-face the best.
Share NationalParksTraveler.org with your friends so they can stay on top of issues confronting the National Park System, sign up for our weekly e-letters so you don't miss a story, and make tax-deductible donations to support the work of the Traveler and the National Parks Conservation Association, a great ally of the parks.
Make no mistake, these are trying times for the National Park System.
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.
Comments
"likely", "possible", "possibility", "might" ... all histerical speculation and none of which would be "threats" or "numbing". But hey, it is an editorial and opinions are approppriate in such a post. In my opinion illegal immigration, high non participation in the work force, massive debt, high taxes, over regulation and a failing healthcare system are "trying times" for the country and if not addressed, there will be no National Park System.
In response to EC, 7:53.
Roger on that, EC. The park culture is a bit myopic on the world outside.
It's not hysterical, it is factual, as evidenced by the documented attempts to make them happen, i.e. the legislative efforts, and they are all threats. The problem with threats is if you don't take them seriously because they're not existant, when they do materialize, it's too late. We can't really undo destruction, and for some aspects of the natural world, you can't replace it either.
If you want to help out with illegal immigration, support more rangers and staffing in border parks. Regarding the "high non participation in the work force" we are at one of the lowest rates of unemployment in roughly the last 30 years, based on numbers from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. High taxes pay for infrastructure and defense, and if you really want to get some cost savings, starting with the largest spenders is a better bet than one of the smallest government expenditures. The entire Dept of the Interior is 8% of the federal government's budget. Regulation helps prevent Flint, MI incidents from happening all over the country, and you're right about the healthcare system needing help. But it's more than just a money thing for that issue. The way we look at healthcare needs to be revised. Like putting a greater emphasis on healthy living, needing less doctors visits, and maintaining a higher level of physical activity, something you can do in open, engaging public lands that create business opportunities in their surrounding areas, attract guests from all over the world (legally), and lots of other things.
One of the most important aspects of national parks is that they give us something meaningful and enjoyable and make life a little more worthwhile.
Casey,
Very well said!!
"possibly", "likely", & "might" are not factural, they are speculation
If their role is to stop illegal immigration, I am all for that but I don't know that NPS rangers have that as part of their job description
Primarily because of the low paricipation rate - due either to frustration or incentives not to work
No starting with the unconstitutional spenders or wasteful spenders would be a better bet, but the reality is every instiutuion will have to participate
Agreed, we over test, over diagnose and over medicate primarily due to the ease to sue and the seperation of payer from recipient.
Apparently not. But they do add cost, stifle growth and destroy jobs.
The hysteria is amazing. The drama queens are ruling the roost here. Give the man some credit for doing it the proper way and going through Congress. Giving you a chance to let your voices be heard. For whatever reason, you loved it when Obama just rode shotgun over it all and created law using Executive Orders because his environmentally damaging polies would have never gotten thru Congress.
Your political bias needs to be toned down and reflect on all the damage done by the previous administration that never went thru congress. Did we forget the oil and gas exploration that was planned by the Obama Admin and canceled by the Trump Administration? Yes.
With Trump0, you fear "the possibility" "Maybe doing this" Maybe doing that" - Yet you seem hysterically happy that Obama just did it without asking your thoughts or opinions. An Executive Order here, another one over there, and Poof, the parks would be full of oil rigs and pipelines without a whisper of dissent.
Did we forget the oil and gas exploration that was planned by the Obama Admin and canceled by the Trump Administration? Yes. What about the proposed mining returning to the Grand Canyon after Obama's secretary of state sold them to a Russian company?
The scary thing is all the under the table deals Obama and Clinton had planned for after her assumed coronation that we have yet to find out. Yet, you still mourn her losing the election to a man who is using the laws to govern the country by. What a unique concetp isn't it??
Final Note: What you want to call "EPA Rollbacks" are actually cancelation of Obama's damaging Executive Orders created to bypass Congress, and pay back large campaign donors. Example: Ivanpah Solar Project. Environmentally damaging, yet financially rewarding to the owners. Obama's EPA created new laws with no oversight, disregarded other laws and fudged the facts to get it built then calling it the future of green energy.
Thanks, Kurt, for your spot-on view of the potential damage on the horizon.
To MrMark and ecbubk and other Trump-lovers.... get real. You're so blinded by your Trump love and fear of people different from you that you can't see anything else.
Fear of people different than me? If you mean people that want to take money from others, that want to destroy economic and job growth for no real benefit, that want to take billions of American dollars and pay them to foreign countries so they can continue to pollute then yes I do fear those "different" people.
No truer statement has ever been posted here.
Nevermind. Message deleted.
you can also visit our Nature Parks Slovenia
https://natureparksslovenia.com/
Reply
Ecbuck is sorely wrong again. Propbably on many but definitely about proper regulation does keep people safer, otherwise why bother? Just like the Admin is rolling back the safeguards against Wall St., or increased safety to prevent another Deepwater oil spill, these things were made to increase safety. Some prefer to live less safely so they can get more money, but that just shows you their priorities.
I'm wrong argalite? Did regulations stop the Flint Michigan incident? You must have a different news feed than I. There is nothing wrong with "proper" regulation though I would bet our definition of what is propert would conflict. In my mind, if a regulation provide little benefit relative to its cost it isn't proper. The ozone regs referred to earlier is a prime example. If 100 PPB is OK, why would you want to push the regulation from 75 PPB to 70PPB.
And yes, some us prefer to live "less safely". In fact, virtually all of us make a decision to live less safe every day. We get in our cars, we fly in airplanes, we eat unhealthy foods, we engage in risky recreation, including going to our National Parks. We each make our own individual decisions of what risks we are willing to take in order to gain the rewards of money, social life, recreation et al. And that is the way it should be.
Wrong, yes. What about the regs I mentioned that this administration has already messed with? Lets use the examples I used, instead of yours. How about another? Okay lets talk about lead in bullets instead. Mr. Zinke pulled the regs to stop using lead to protect carrion eating birds. Not because he cares about birds, but money. Not my priorities at all.
Wrong about what? What statement have I made that is "wrong".
Well argalite appears to have run from his "wrong" accusation so now lets grant his wish and talk about lead ammunition as it is a perfect example of how bad the process of making regulations is.
Nobody disputes that Condors (and other birds) have issues with lead poisioning. Many thought it was due to lead ammunition (despite the absense of direct evidence). In 2007, lead ammunition was banned in the "Condor Corridor". In 2013, taking a page from the AGW cult playbook, the Fish and Wildlife service withheld evidence that the ban had had no material impact on the levels of lead in the condor population.
Why did they withhold that information? Because at the time, the California legislature was considering an outright ban for the entire state, which lacking this important information, was passed.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/2/lead-ammunition-ban-passe...
Now, with a total ban in place what has been the result. Nothing. In fact, if anything lead levels were higher after the ban.
https://www.fws.gov/cno/es/CalCondor/PDF_files/2015_Annual_HMNWRC_Condor... page 32
So what do we have. Legislation/regulation implemented under false pretenses having absolutely no positive effect and leading to a doubling of the cost of ammunition. But hey, all the enviros got to feel warm and fuzzy. Unfortunately this seems to be the rule rather than the exception.
Ok ecbuck, I said wrong and explained it, so now I have to spoon feed you. Stated again: Ecbuck is sorely wrong again. Propbably on many but definitely about proper regulation does keep people safer, otherwise why bother? As for lead, guess we have to wait, don't we?
Phase 1 – Effective July 1, 2015, nonlead ammunition will be required when taking Nelson bighorn sheep and all wildlife on CDFW wildlife areas and ecological reserves.
Phase 2 – Effective July 1, 2016, nonlead shot will be required when taking upland game birds with a shotgun, except for dove, quail, snipe, and any game birds taken on licensed game bird clubs. In addition, nonlead shot will be required when using a shotgun to take resident small game mammals, furbearing mammals, nongame mammals, nongame birds, and any wildlife for depredation purposes.
Phase 3 – Effective July 1, 2019, nonlead ammunition will be required when taking any wildlife with a firearm anywhere in California.
You explained nothing. You mentioned something about "proper regulation" but I never said anything about regulations other than regulations apparently did not stop the Flint, Michigan incident.
As to lead, we don't have to wait to see. We have 10 years of history of a lead ammunition ban in the Condor Corridor and nearly 5 years in the entire state of California with absolutely no beneficial effect.
Please read before commenting next time ecbuck.
California does not have a total lead ban in the state yet, as that happens in 2019!
There you go again argalite, putting words in my mouth. I never said "total". Phase 1 and Phase 2, both currently in effect, are statewide bans and cover the majority of applications. Along with Phase 1 and Phase 2 there has been a ban in the Condor Corridor since 2007. Net result? Nada.
Total is another word for entire, is English your second language?
"entire" is an adjective. It describe a noun. In this case the noun was "state". "Entire state" (as opposed to just the Condor Corridor) I did not say "entire ban" or "total ban".
You can twist the semantics all you want and claim things I never said. But, the botton line is the ban, whether partial, total or entire has had no possitive effect on lead levels in the condor.
Here is a quote of your words:
"We have 10 years of history of a lead ammunition ban in the Condor Corridor and nearly 5 years in the entire state of California"....
What information were you trying to convey? Your lack of knowledge? Just where would the condors get their lead if not though shot and bullets?
My comment is accurate. There have been bans in the Condor Corridor for 10 years ad in the entire state for nearly 5 years.
I have no idea where they get it but what I do know is that the regulations, some of which are as much as 10 years old, have had no beneficial effect.
How stupid are you? There will be no ban for lead ammo in the entire state until 2019. Check with the state.
Condors will not get enough access to lead to be a problem once the ban is in effect.
Quit reading your NRA propaganda
There will be no ban for lead ammo in the entire state until 2019
Lead ammo is currently banned in the entire state for hunting Nelson bighorn sheep, upland game birds with a shotgun, small game mammals, furbearing mammals, non-game mammals, non-game birds and any wildlife for depredation purposes. So yes there are statewide bans for the vast majority of hunted animals. With all those bans, the level of lead in condors hasn't declined. The bans have had absolutely no effect.
Maybe the lead ban isn't being enforced and/or adhered to?
That is nothing like a statewide ban. ecbuck, your list does not include the animals a condor would normally eat, (aside from the bighorn) such as deer, or other large game mammals for example. When you hunt those animals, hunters leave the gutpile with lead fragments from the ammo. That is why condors are dying. Did you know a crow is one of the few anmals that go toward a rifle sound because they know there will be a gutpile?.
Do you have any evidence it isn't being inforced. Any evidence the vast majority of hunters are risking non-compliance? And if it isn't being enforced, is it an effective regulation?
The problem with regulations and government agencies in general is there is never an end game. In order to protect their own jobs they feel the need to continue to create regulations and enforcement mechanisms to ensure their own survival. There should be a reward or incentive to make themselves if not obsolete, a fraction of their original size. That is success. Yes, technology and laws will change requiring updates from time to time or even reinstating an obsolete agency. But, over spending and over regulation is the natural course of events, especially when talking about government where you are spending other peoples money. Reigning in those agencies from time to time is not only prudent but necessary. Left to their own devices a department like the EPA will exhaust all the best science and guidance and then over reach just to protect their own interests and try to remain relevant. The same is true with the NPS. Left unchecked they would make the entire country a National Park and take every last dollar they can.
It ain't just condors either, bald eagles are affected also:
http://www.oneidadispatch.com/general-news/20170717/bald-eagle-threat-le...