Great idea.  And maybe if enough people follow up with more, and to Zinke himself, (or at least Interior headquarters) we can tip all the bottled water machines in our parks over onto their sides. 

{And don't y'dare go changing that photo.  It's perfect just as it is.  ;-}

But how about also waging an email campaign addressed to concessionaires who actually sell the water bottles?  Right now, they are the ones who hold all the power. 

I wouldn't say that park concessionaires are the only sellers.  I've been to NPS sites that have no particular concessionaire where bottled water or snacks may be available.  There might be a visitor center with a small shop run by a park affiliated nonprofit that mostly sells souvenirs, but might have a cooler with assorted beverages.  I know there's no concessionaire per se at Arches or Canyonlands, but the Canyonlands Natural History Association sells stuff including beverages and energy bars.

I found this old letter in my records. . .

Dear Superintendent,

While you're banning bubble gum and candy wrappers, how about banning cars? And overflights? And tour buses? Make everyone come in on foot.  I know; it's unAmerican, but why do environmentalists never tackle what really counts?

Just thinking out loud. . ., but it's all in my book, Desert Solitaire. See my chapter "Polemic: Industrial Tourism and the National Parks." I know; the Park Service isn't into reading books, which in fact is why I wrote Desert Solitaire. I kept it simple so you would understand why banning candy wrappers is not the problem.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Sincerely,

Edward Abbey

y_p_w, the pictured Dasani water-dispensing machine, which intentionally was placed on its side, was photographed at the Island in the Sky Visitor Center at Canyonlands. What was particularly ironic was the placement of a free water fountain perhaps 20 feet beyond it, as this picture shows.

Here's our story from 2012:

https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2012/02/sale-plastic-water-bottles...

My intent was to just cite an example of where there is no concessionaire with a clear profit motive, but where a cooperative nonprofit might sell a minor amount of products that a concessionaire might normally provide.  I don't know who was responsible for that vending machine.

However, I don't necessarily believe that the motives of the current administration are pure.  I get that they seem intent on reversing the actions of the previous administration for partisan reasons.  I'm hoping that our public lands can somehow survive this administration.

y_p_w. Are you suggesting that the "motives" of the last administration were "pure?" Why? Because they were Democrats? I can think of a whole number of issues they dodged, hedged, and screwed up as well. My principal beef, as disclosed on these pages, is what they did to the public lands in the name of "renewable" energy. Were those motives "pure," or again, driven by the politics of government subsidies, in which political grandstanding substitutes for truth?

Like Edward Abbey above (of course, he never wrote the "letter," but he did write Desert Solitaire), I think we should be more concerned about what is destroying the public lands rather than what might make them "pure" to Democrats, Republicans, or anyone else. Purity there is in the eye of the beholder, since it is totally warped by politics. You don't like lifting the ban on water bottles because a Republican administration lifted the ban. By the same token, most Democrats I know accepted renewable energy because the public lands destroyed in its name were being destroyed by Democrats.

Sorry, but plastic straws and plastic water bottles are not the biggest threat to our public lands. They remain the threats identified by Edward Abbey's generation--overpopulation, overvisitation, and plain overuse in general. What do you expect from a population of 325 million people--and a world fast approaching eight billion? Purity? So long as Democrats, left alone Republicans, accept the the need for growth--and legislate for it--you can forget all about purity, and that goes especially for our public lands.

I don't feel that this administrations heart really lies in the interests of our national parks.  It seems more about ideology than any actual concern about the state of our national parks.  That's what I mean by intents being "pure".  I don't believe their goals are really about what's in the best interests of our national parks and other public lands.  I don't necessarily toe a party line.  If you read my thoughts, I didn't particularly think that the bottle ban was a great idea.  However, I don't particularly like the way it's been done and the clear message that the business interests of bottled water sellers is what's important.

I get that there are a lot of conflicting purposes of our national parks, including the cross purposes of having people enjoy them by visiting, while keeping them from being damages as a result of visitation.  I look at the incription on the Roosevelt arch that says "FOR THE BENEFIT AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PEOPLE".  I certainly don't look towards Ed Abbey as a role model.  I could have sworn he expressed unabashed racism.