Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke seems to be developing a habit for infusing politics into his job. Should that be ignored?/ © Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0.
The other day on Traveler's Facebook page a reader took me to task for posting a story about Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's claim that roughly one-third of all Interior Department employees are against him and President Trump.
"The politicization of so many of your posts has become tiresome," he wrote.
As an editorially independent media outlet, I replied, we cover issues pertinent to the Park Service and the National Park System. As such, Secretary Zinke's claim was certainly pertinent to our coverage, in part because of the overall ramifications to the National Park System, and because we have a high readership of National Park Service employees.
Indeed, just about anything this Interior secretary -- or any Interior secretary -- does or says is pertinent to the management and future of the national parks.
Unfortunately, politics do seem to be appearing more and more in the news of the day. They were never absent, but after the presidential campaign -- not just its outcome, but the actual campaign -- the appearance, and interference, of politics shouldn't be surprising.
What should media do? Sit back and ignore the machinations of Washington when they have impact on the country?
The political and policy swing from Secretary Sally Jewell to Secretary Ryan Zinke has been broad and deep and can't be ignored.
Secretary Zinke placed a National Rifle Association official on the National Park Foundation's board of directors, is pushing federal land managers to issue more energy exploration permits more quickly, has called for a downsizing of some national monuments and the opening of others to resource extraction, and supports a significant reduction in both the Interior Department's budget and workforce. Interior also reversed course on previous rulings and took steps to approve a dangerous groundwater mining proposal that threatens Mojave National Preserve, the third-largest national park site in the lower 48 states.
While Secretary Jewell opposed a transmission line running through the James River near Historic Jamestowne and Colonial National Historical Park, Secretary Zinke wanted construction to begin as quickly as possible.
"That said," I continued in my Facebook reply, "we cover many other issues, such as the recent series on bison in the West, the strain of visitors on resources and park staff, the hurricane relief and recovery efforts, the comeback of eastern Hemlocks, photography columns, book reviews, as well as stories on how to enjoy the parks."
The reader came around to see my point of view.
"I jumped too quickly when I saw the post earlier today," he said. "Agreed, it is relevant, but in today's political climate due to this insane NFL issue (both sides are acting like children and fanning the flames), when I read the post about Zinke I thought, 'Oh no, not something else for people to blow up over!' I guess my thought was, yes, it's relevant, but couldn't we just let this one go? But, that would be wrong; it does impact the morale of the NPS employees, which in turn impacts the parks."
Employee morale also might take a hit from Secretary Zinke's travel decisions. Late last week, after news broke that Mr. Zinke charted a plane to fly from Las Vegas to Montana at a cost of $12,375, the Interior secretary referred to the flap as "a little BS over travel." Compared to Tom Price's fancy for government-paid-for flights, said to cost taxpayers north of $400,000, yes, $12,375 is miniscule.
But here's the kicker: Mr. Zinke didn't need to charter the flight. He did, though, rather than fly commercial for roughly $300 so he could stick around Las Vegas to speak at a private professional hockey team affair unrelated to his role overseeing the country's public lands and resources. The team is owned, according to the Center for Western Priorities, by Bill Foley, chairman of Fidelity National Financial, the largest contributor to Mr. Zinke's political career.
At a time when the Trump administration wants to cut the federal government's budget and remove roughly 1,200 Park Service staff, at a time when there's already not enough staff in the parks to protect resources or see that visitors have a great experience, the Interior secretary thinks spending more than $12,000 of taxpayer dollars so he can give a talk to benefit his largest political benefactor passes the smell test. It doesn't, and it isn't likely to help build the morale of Park Service employees.
No Data?
The Trump administration apparently has no response to the curious title page they attached to the water bottle report showing how successful a National Park Service ban on the sale of disposable water bottles in just 23 of the more than 400 units of the park system has been.
The report, obtained by The Washington Post via a Freedom of Information Act request, said the ban prevented upwards of 2 million 16-ounce bottles from entering the waste stream on an annual basis, cut between 73,624-111,743 pounds of PET from landfills, resulted in energy savings of 2,209-3,353 million British thermal units per year, and reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 93-141 metric tons. It also claimed the data "is presented at a 95 percent confidence."
Last Monday we asked Park Service officials in Washington how there can be a 95 percent confidence level if “the bureau lacked the data necessary to ensure the report’s findings”?
While we were told on Monday that staff was working to answer that question, by Friday night they were unable to provide one.
Hurricane Recovery Funds
Here's a look at some of the funds that have been set up to help National Park Service personnel impacted by this year's hurricanes:
* The National Park Service Employees & Alumni Trust Fund performs disaster relief at the request of the National Park Service to support NPS and partner organization employees with immediate assistance for temporary shelter, food, damage to homes, and essential personal property. It is managed by Eastern National Park, a Park Service cooperating association.
"The National Park Service Employee & Alumni Trust Fund has collected $36,000 and received 65 requests for immediate assistance, mostly from NPS and partner organization employees in Florida and Texas," Eastern National President and CEO Kevin Kissling said Friday via email. "Communications with staff in the Caribbean remain sporadic, thus only a few requests have been submitted from employees in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. As infrastructure repairs progress, we anticipate additional requests will be submitted."
* Friends of Virgin Islands National Park has launched a recovery fund for the island of St. John, home to the national park.
On September 6, 2017 Hurricane Irma passed over St. John as a Category 5 hurricane. The results were devastating. Virgin Islands National Park, along with most of the homes and buildings on the island, were seriously damaged. The flora and the fauna of the island were decimated. It is not the St. John we know and love. We will recover, but it will be a long-haul.
Your support will be critical to the recovery process. Although nature is resilient, as humans we need to eliminate all barriers and obstacles in its way. On St. John, that now means a tremendous amount of clean-up, re-building and re-designing of our habitat. From clearing debris to rebuilding roads, trails and beach access ways.
Donations are being taken here.
* The South Florida National Park Trust is raising funds for Biscayne,Dry Tortugas, and Everglades national parks as well as Big Cypress National Preserve.
Although damage assessments are underway in each of the parks, we still don’t know where our help – and your support – is needed most. We will be working with our partner parks in coming weeks to identify the most urgent needs moving forward.
You can donate at this page.
Comments
Might be illuminating, but it is a dead link.
It must be a miserable life to have a passion to be anti-enfironmentally conscious. To continually bad-mouth people who are trying to help oithers. To heap scorn on people who care about polution in the wilderness. "Grampa - when I grow up I wanna be just as unhappy as you are."
I can't control what links the NPS keeps active nor the fact you apparently weren't paying attention the first time. Perhaps SJ can find the document again. Meanwhile, the fact that link ended the discussion at the time I believe is a strong indication that it made the point.
I don't know who you think is leading a miserable life. It isn't me. I am quite happy with a great wife, family, and friends. I live in a beautiful place, enjoy the outdoors, contribute to my community and care much about the environment, the wilderness and plight of man in a balanced manner.
OK here is what PEER claimed:
https://www.peer.org/assets/docs/nps/4_5_16_Waste_Reductions_from_%20Bot...
Here is what was actually reported to Congress:
https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/foia/upload/NPS-Response-to-Congressional-In...
The NPS report consisted of the analyses that were done prior to the ban. In all cases numbers were estimated and in most they were estimating plastic bottles of all varieties from all sources (not just NPS sales) None of the reports reflected actual reductions following the ban. Yet PEER took these numbers and claimed they were actual reductions.
After wading through the stuff contained in ec's link, I fail to see any significant contradictions. Looks like a bunch of . . . (what's the favorite phrase?) . . . . baseless accusations.
One of the big problems in something like this is that a waste stream comes from many sources. Eliminating sales of plastic bottles in parks cannot eliminate bottles as long a they are available in other places surrounding the parks. This whole thing was a great opportunity to try to educate thinking people and help them understand the harmful impacts of plastic in our environment. It's a tiny piece of what Dr. Runte urges as he calls for wise stewardship of our world. Maybe someday, we will become wise enough to begin reducing our impacts. But for now the Almighty Dollar has won -- again.
For whatever it may be worth, here's a link to some Congressional propaganda produced by the Congresscritter who is sponsoring a bill in support of a bottle ban:
https://quigley.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/quigley-introduces...
In it, he says, "Following the implementation of the original ban on plastic water bottles, parks that were able to join the effort saw real results. Zion National Park in Utah eliminated the sale of 60,000 water bottles, or 5,000 pounds of plastic waste, by installing bottle-filling stations and selling affordable reusable bottles in their concession stands. This is a prime example of how encouraging the use of reusable bottles and making them readily available can reduce waste and act as a model for best practices in sustainability."
But note that he makes no claim that the park's efforts eliminated bottles completely. But it did reduce them simply because they didn't enter the waste stream via the park. Just a few years ago, smoking was tolerated almost anywhere. But then we went to work and began to educate people about its terrible effects. Anyone older than 40 should remember days when every place we went was filled with smoke. We educated people and today we breathe much cleaner air. This can, (and should) be extended to other aspects of American life. Including trash production by marketers that have managed to convince too many of our neighbors that they need something they are making and hawking as they fill their pockets with cash. Much, if not most, of our behaviors as consumers have resulted from "education" handed to us in TV commercials. What could happen if we tried to counter that with education coming from another side?
Smart people learn to examine things like this and try to make responsible decisions for what they will and will not use. But before they may examine, they must be educated.
You must be blind. The NPS puts out estimates of total plastics before the ban and PEER falsly translates that into actual reductions after the ban.
Ooooo.
That does sound serious.
Like something Congress or donald might do.
However, PEER repeatedly uses the word "estimates." No one has rock solid numbers becuase there are so many variables that it's impossible to nail down anything exact.
But anyone who fails to see the bigger picture is blind, too.
And there is a much bigger picture out there.
No they don't. NPS submissions use the words estimates. PEER says "The following parks reported these percentages of reduction in their total waste stream and recycling load"
A blatent lie.
This is weird. Apparently Zinke likes using military style flags to denote whether or not he's in the building. And he's also commissioned commermerative medaliions with his name and title on them, although it's not clear who's paying for them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/wheres-zinke-the-interior-secret...