You are here

Traveler's View: Psst! Our National Parks Are In Danger

Share

Park advocates need to rise up in support of the National Park System/NPS

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. 

Featured Article

Comments

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.


I said wrong and explained it

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.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.