What would the National Park System be without a National Park Service? Would you treasure Old Faithful, Delicate Arch, or Thunder Hole as much without a nearby ranger to answer your questions, provide some reassurance for your safety, and care for the integrity of the natural resources that drew you to these places?
It may not be such a far-fetched idea under the Trump administration, and you might just see a trial run this weekend. Traveler has learned that in the event of a government shutdown Friday, the National Park System will remain open. Non-essential Park Service personnel will not report to work, but concessions will continue to operate, and visitors will be free to enter.
"The word for weeks is that we don't stop people from coming in as long as we don't have to spend money," a park superintendent said. "Concessions can still operate. Partners can run things as long as there is no reimbursement (from the government)."
At the Park Service's Washington headquarters, spokesman Jeremy Barnum confirmed Wednesday night that the parks would indeed remain open to visits in the event of a government shutdown.
"We fully expect the government to remain open, however in the event of a shutdown, national parks will remain as accessible as possible while still following all applicable laws and procedures," he said in an email. "For example, this means that roads that have already been open will remain open (think snow removal) and vaulted toilets (wilderness type restrooms) will remain open. However services that require staffing and maintenance such as campgrounds and full-service restrooms, will not be operating. The American public and especially our veterans who come to our nation's capital will find war memorials and open-air parks open to the public."
This type of "soft closure" would give Republicans in Congress cover in the event of a shutdown. If you remember, during the last shutdown in October 2013, Republicans bore the brunt of the criticism for the park system being closed to the public. (Except in a few states where state tax dollars were used to keep parks open by paying the salaries and other bills. The Interior Department signed contracts with the states to allow them to operate the parks during the shutdown.)
But it's also highly possible that this approach is about more, much more, than giving the GOP cover in the mid-term elections this fall.
"They will always be able to say, 'Hey, we didn't shut down the parks. The gates were still open, weren't they? All we did is send most of those parasitic bureaucrats home and you still had a good time right? It just goes to show that less government is better," one ranger told us.
A conspiracy theorist would say a government shutdown is the perfect opportunity for the Trump administration to show Congress and the American public that parks can be run effectively without the NPS. Just connect the dots:
* We know the administration wants to cut the NPS budget and staff. President Trump's FY18 budget proposal called for a 13 percent cut in the Park Service budget, and the loss of about 1,200 full-time jobs;
* The Property and Environment Research Center, a free-market proponent, long has touted the possibility of “national park franchises” that would be run by the private sector;
* President Trump still has not nominated a permanent director for the National Park Service;
* Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke already has said that when it comes to campgrounds, NPS staff is best suited to clean restrooms, not manage them;
* In Washington, the National Park Service was being moved out of the third-floor offices it has occupied for decades so one of Secretary Zinke's deputies can take it over. The deputy, identified by The Washington Post as Doug Domenech, is assistant secretary for insular areas, a political appointee;
* Secretary Zinke is proposing a massive reorganization of the Interior Department, one that, if implemented, would drastically reorganize the various bureaus under the Interior umbrella and challenge them to mesh their various missions.
Too, in a recent interview with Outdoor Life, the secretary was dismissive of Park Service staff at Glacier National Park because they were not focused on timber management.
“I had a parks administrator tell me that timber management wasn’t his priority, that his priority was managing visitors," he was quoted as saying. "I told him, ‘Then what do I need you for? If managing visitors is your only job, then all I need is a ticket-taker at the entrance gate.’ So many people get into park management because they’re preservationists. I’m a conservationist, and that means actually managing what we’re stewards of.”
Phil Francis, chair of the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, doubted Wednesday that the administration wants to do away with the Park Service completely. But...
"I think there’s clearly interest though that they want to contract out more to the private sector to do the work that we’ve been doing all these years," said Mr. Francis, who spent more than four decades with the Park Service, including eight years as superintendent of the Blue Ridge Parkway. "I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. A government shutdown is one thing, but to contract all the services out that the National Park Service does? That would take years. Maybe they have years to do it.”
At Boise State University, Professor John Freemuth, whose primary focus is public lands management and who is executive director of the Cecil D. Andrus Center for Public Policy, said there certainly is cause for concern for how the Trump administration is managing public lands and the National Park System.
"Connect the dots. In other words, this isn't one event that came out," he said. "Let's say this kind of statement (to keep the parks open during a government shutdown) came out during the Obama administration. You and I wouldn't be having this conversation. But you connect all the other dots."
The professor, citing the interview Secretary Zinke conducted with Outdoor Life, questioned how well Secretary Zinke understands the mission of the National Park Service.
"That amazing thing at the end of your note you sent me about Glacier National Park, which is absolutely befuddling, it suggests that the secretary doesn't understand the mission of the National Park Service," said Dr. Freemuth. "And then, to suggest that dealing with visitors is not a priority. I was a seasonal a long time ago. That's how people fall in love with the Park Service, the rangers they meet who help them. That's almost a window into his thinking. If he thinks that, then getting rid of non-essential personnel fits right in to the fact that in his mind the mission of the Park Service is not what the rest of us think it is.
"... And if you don't need those people, then it does open the door to the argument that some private group could run the parks, which is appalling," said the professor.
When the park system shut down for 16 days in October 2013, the Park Service figured the economic loss at $414 million. There are those in the tourism industry who don't think a similar loss should be incurred if the government shuts down again, that Park Service personnel don't need to be around to ensure concessions operations run satisfactorily.
"We support a tradition of health and safety functions occurring in parks even during a shutdown, and use of visitor-generated park revenues to provide visitor services. Concessions operations in parks rarely rely upon daily NPS staff operations and most can operate during a federal shutdown, just as ski areas and other recreation services continued in 2013 in national forests," Derrick Crandall, president of the American Recreation Coalition as well as the counselor to the National Park Hospitality Association, which represents park concessionaires, wrote in an email Wednesday.
While that sounds fine, parks such as Yellowstone, Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, and Golden Gate operate much like small cities, with fire departments, EMTs, law enforcement, sewer and water systems, and more. Too, many parks are home to archaeological, paleontological, and cultural artifacts that could be tempting to some visitors emboldened by the lack of rangers. Not to be overlooked is the dangerous nature of some parks: Mount Rainier with its heavy snows, icy roads, and avalanche potential. Zion with its steep, narrow trails that lead to precipices with thousand-foot dropoffs, and dangerous slot canyons. Acadia with its pounding surf. Big Cypress National Preserve with its wild backcountry.
Mr. Crandall did not immediately respond to a follow-up question of whether the Interior secretary's position that parks should remain open, albeit without full NPS personnel, during a government shutdown marked a transformative moment for the agency. Others thought the Trump administration's handling of the National Park System and its agency certainly deserved close attention by the public.
"This is unchartered territory that raises frightening questions about the integrity of our parks, their management, and the visitor experience," said John Garder, senior director of budget and appropriations for the National Parks Conservation Association. "The administration needs to recognize the profound responsibilities only the Park Service can meet to steward parks and provide for visitor enjoyment."
"I think people that are used to, and friends of, the parks need to pay serious attention to all this, because it appears to be a pattern," added Dr. Freemuth.
To a generation of environmentalists and conservationists, James Watt, who served a short stint as Interior secretary under President Reagan, epitomized the threat to public lands. Now, perhaps, Ryan Zinke has eclipsed him.
"I think so," ventured Dr. Freemuth. "I have a good friend at the University of Wyoming, Greg Cowley, and Greg wrote a book on Federal Lands, Western Anger, and he pointed that Watt wanted to go back to more multiple use, oil and gas and all of that. But he fought the privatizers in the White House. In fact, I know some of them who blame Watt for frustrating their agenda, which was to privatize more and more of the public lands. In that sense, I wonder if Zinke is worse."
Pointing back to the Outdoor Life article and Secretary Zinke's comments about timber production being more important than visitor management, the professor said, "that Glacier comment, whether he was just stupid that day or just not paying attention, if he thinks the purpose of national parks is sort of revenue commodity production, we've got a big problem."
Stories about:
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
I know this blows the minds of most liberals, but most people do know how to take care of themselves without the government holding their hands. An open park allows the businessmen that depend on that revenue to not suffer devastating losses. Many of the above services could be covered by private concessions and volunteers.
Reagan was absoltuely right when he stated that the eight most frightening words in the English language are "I'm from the government, and I am here to help."
And who will protect the Parks from the visitors? An unstaffed, or understaffed, park is an invitation to the destruction of America's mst beautiful and precious natural resources. If you haven't seen the kind of destruction that less protected public lands are subjected to: grafitti, initials carved in trees, tree limbs cut for firewood, litter, and on and on, then you can't appreciate how imprtant adequate staffing is. And if you haven't visited enough National Monuments, National Parks, National Forests and BLM-managed public lands to know this, you really shouldn't make politicized comments about necessary protection of natural resources.
I think you're missing the point. Of course those services could be covered by the private sector on a for profit basis. Public Services are a way of providing the same that many people prefer. Public servants who directly aid the public tend to be slightly more well paid, provide higher quality work (partly due to being a higher-paid professional workforce), and do so at a lower cost to the public then private sector alternatives.
Liberal, conservative, whatever, most people have no idea how to behave in the backcountry. Just live next door to Yellowstone for a year and you will experience several deaths a year, selfies with bison, no bear spray in grizzly country, forgetting to take emergency supplies, no water or purification units...the list goes on. Not to mention the vandalism and wildlife harrassment that would occur. I do not agree with your assessment. Most of our summer visitors are from places like China where they don't even use flush toilets and need signs how to use one instead of standing on the seats.
Maybe in some urban parks visitors don’t need to be told how to stay safe and how to keep the park’s wild animals safe (especially the animals that the federal government spent HUGE amounts of money to bring back from near extinction). In many parks, people NEED to be informed of potential dangers that they would not know about as first-time visitors. For example, areas near bluffs may crumble without notice, sending an enthusiastic visitor 200 feet off a cliff or bluff into the ocean or land below. Who will provide a quick first response and organize a rescue of that person on an island 22 miles away from the mainland? And without knowledge of what endangers our park’s resources, what will stop people from taking, harming or destroying them? An example is the park’s animals. If they aren’t advised not to do so, many people WILL feed the cute little fox Cheetos, chocolate, peanut butter and other foods that could make them sick or kill them. And then, of course, there’s the ranger or volunteer who answers questions about why a particular rock, tree, animal, building, or other feature is important. This discussion helps the visitor better understand the relevance of the park to his or her life. But due to this shutdown, those rangers are not available and volunteers are not allowed to volunteer and perform those functions. NPS employees inherently have a stronger commitment to protection of the NPS lands and visitors than most concession workers.
Nice attitude. How about you come to the parks and clean up trash and human waste messes left by people during the lack of services?
How about all the visitors who are disappointed by the absence of visitor centers, guided walks, and other programs? National Park Service interpreters typically have at least a college degree related to their field coupled with training on how to convey information and resource appreciation that concessions employes, frankly cannot accomplish as effectively. National Park Service protection rangers have extensive training in emergency medical, search and rescue, firefighting, and other visitor needs.
You seem to be participating in the school of thought that government jobs be replaced by private sector. Having worked with and around both NPS and concessions employees for more than two decades, I surely hope that any future visit I make to a national park be enhanced by the dedicated National Park Service employees I have seen working there in the past.
As a concessioneer your interests are obvious. Let me point out that if anyone directly counts on the National Park Service (NPS) to keep their business afloat, they are profoundly misinformed. Be reminded that the purpose of the NPS is to preserve for future generations the unique structure and meaning of the park. That does not entail looking out for hot dog salesmen, timber interests, grazing interests, miners, farmers or any other man-generated use of the land and its environs. Wilderness in perpetuity has been the mantra. The reasoning coming from Washington's current Republican-controlled Congress is that the parks would be better managed by privatization. To paraphrase: I know this blows the minds of most conservatives, but most people recognize that the interest of any private company is the bottom line and if a choice must be made between preservation and making a buck--the buck wins the argument. The laws enacted to create, preserve, and sustain these public lands was put in place for a reason. Teddy Roosevelt recognized it. John Muir recognized it. Millions of people recognize it each year thanks to those in the park service who perform their jobs well. Letting the fox run the henhouse has never been a good idea.
This demonstrates the polarization encountered now in operating government agencies. The pendelum from one extreme to the other with no moderation and no attempt to put the act of governing and future generations over politics of the day is tragic. The last shutdown began with a lockdown mentality and it slowly began to disintegrate into parks opening to the highest bidder (the states who paid to open them). Many in the agency thought the last administration sold out by allowing the states to open the parks and it set a bad precedent. Now this one could be much different from the get go and all of this is supported by Solicitor opinions (some of them the same for both shutdowns).
During the last shutdown the busiest place in the National Park System was the Solicitors Office in main Interior. I think more Solicitors work during the last shutdown than park rangers.
Let's hope this is all smoke.
I hope a budget continuation can be worked out....that said, I welcome the change of management should the shut down occur.
ReallY? People can take care of themselves?
Then why do rangers and EMTs risk their lives (and definitely spoil their weekends) searching for lost hikers? Why do people say "They'll come and get me"? Who are these "they"?
It will be interesting to see. Here in the Southeast, it is so cold and icy that few people will venture into the Smokies and the Blue Ridge Parkway is closed. So I don't think we can test out these theories.
Danny Bernstein
It sounds like trump's Russian allies have hacked the Traveler's comments.
How refreshing. Unlike the last administration, this administration won't be holding the Parks hostage to try to influence public opinion. The fact the Parks can operate without them must scare the cr@p out of the Park beauacracy and many other government employees as well. That said, I don't believe the NPS should be eliminated and doubt that is the goal or intent of the administration either. As to rangers and EMTs risking the lives. Certainly appreciated, but there are many volunteer organizations and temporary volunteers around the country that do the same thing on a regular basis.
Perhaps the saddest part of all this is the reason we aren't reaching a budget agreement. It has nothing to do with the "budget" but rather is the Dems trying to pad their base by rewarding criminal activity.
Do you really want to rely on a volunteer to rescue you when your life is in danger?
Trump and Zinke want to get rid of the National Park Service. This is their test case.
Typical liberal comment. Dare to touch your bloated agency at all, and you‘re the devil trying to eliminate it. Liberals don’t think they can go to the bathroom without government guidance, and every agency must be gigantic. The government should own every inch of land, too according to the liberal.
The Antiquities Act , which liberals forget was for small land parcels, (read it sometime) never was designed for what the government has grabbed. NPS needs an overhaul.
WHy do you have to label people as far as their political standing? Do you forget that many of visitors to Parks are foreigners who need instructions and help? I've seen my share of visitors throwing trash on the ground, leaving trash at back country campsites, harassing wildlife, falling into hot pools and dying, getting gorged by bison, defacing cherished antiquities, even breaking toilet seats because they do not have them in their countries. I think you are from back east or the south, but those of us who live in the West love our public lands to hike, hunt, and recreate.
Our family loves visiting parks as we travel. Almost every knowledgeable worker at the pars are either volunteers or seasonal staff. Taking care of the timber and land management should come first in the parks. A great contributer to the dangerous fires we've seen is poor management. Frequent controlled burning of under brush would've saved massive numbers of people, homes, and land areas.
If it were a true government shutdown we would never have any. The most evil device Congress has ever invented in its history has been the "continuing resolution".
And in response to the parks concession employee above, what really needs revamping in the Concessions Management Act. Too much power given to these businesses. If you fdon't like the NPS, then quit yyour job and move outside the park boundary and work for McDonalds where you're likely to make more money anyhow.
Yeah, there are thousands of volunteer EMTs around the nation - I was one for years. [How many uncompensated hours of professionally qualified labor have you put in like that on behalf of people you don't know?] How many EMTs have both the speciaalized training to do wilderness rescue and how many of those particularly experienced ones live within proximity to wilderness areas is another matter. You are depending upon a volunteer system to fund and maintain the specific types of expensive communications equipment, climbing equipment, and so forth to rescue your entitled touchas when you fall into a mountain crevasse? This is the obscene mirror image of you right wing nuts who panic at the idea of the government helping someoine you don't know, but at the same time you expect strangers to volunteer to do the same for free.
James Watt referenced above was - after leaving office - very nearly convicted of several felonies in an episode that spoke volumes about his character and that of those who formerly promoted him to the administration which he served. He pled to a misdemeanor and disappeared from public consciousness (except for a lingering bad taste in our mouths.) Gale Norton was investigated for a pay to play and denial of honest services scheme involving an oil company. The investigation petered out in the Justice Department because they couldn't be assured of a slam dunk conviction. She was, however, recognized as the poison pill that she is and replaced with someone who represented more of what GWB felt about Interior Department issues - benign neglect more than active damage. And now we have Zinke, who couldn't even slide through a few first months before being investigated by his own IG for unethical conduct. I'm waiting for him to declare himself admiral over the Interior fleet of marine vessels and install counterassult teams in his USPP protective detail.
Funny that no one sees "their side" as the problem again. As I hear it from "the Press," the Democrats are refusing to budge unless the Dreamers are finally legalized. The Republicans are refusing to budge unless they get "the Wall." Unless I miss my guess, this has nothing to do with "us," except to prove that the Big US (the United States) is in trouble. And don't think for a moment that your argument is above reproach. It's not, because argument for its own sake is the problem. If we wanted good government, all of us would believe in the rule of law as the critical foundation of that government. No one gaming the system would be called a Dreamer; no Wall would need to exist. We had that country once, if still an imperfect country. Losing that country, and thus turning debate into argument, remains the only threat to our national parks.
Government in the 21st Century is already a mix of government employees, private sector employees, non-profits, contractors, volunteers, state and local entities, etc. It is very much a web of interconnectiveness and rarely are things clearly black and white and the ability to run our parks successfully requires a collaborative outlook and mind set. So, if there is a shutdown, a lot of people are let down - not just government workers. A lot of people are let down and I bet many of them voted for both candidates in the 2016 election. This isn't how you would run a business and it isn't how you should run a government.
Remember this at election time. Drain the Swamp by voting out ALL incumbents. It's time to at least try for a fresh start.
At least today, though, instead of blaming Dems, McConnell is turning his ire on trumpf. "If he'd just tell us what he wants we'd give it to him."
Sheesh!
McConnell is a bafoon.
And now, hoisted on their own petard [small explosive device, from French pétard, from péter ‘break wind’], the GOP administration is pushing the “Conscience and Religious Freedom Division”, whereby I, as a healthcare provider, am allowed to refuse care based on my own conscience and religious freedom.
You callous right wing blowhards might want to bring your own healthcare providers with you when you visit our woods.
Right or left, it sure looks like the Donald is taking apart the government piece by piece. I'm so happy to retire this year.
Rick, I thought those "protections" were part of Obamacare, too. No? Meanwhile, as I read the statutes, no one can "refuse" emergency healthcare to anyone. As for taking apart the government "piece by piece," Argalite. What government are you talking about? The one where the party out of power was still loyal to the country itself? We started taking that country apart decades ago.
The Affordable Care Act did not legislate me the right to discriminate in how I perform my job. Over the years I gave cadillac level care to drunkards, bigots, child-killers, people of every ethnicity and sexual predeliction and never once did I ever allow any of those distinctions to affect my care.
Now they want the right to do so. Do you agree with them?
You will have to tell me who "they" are, Rick. As for agreeing with "them," I await your explanation of why you feel that everyone is entitled to Cadillac care.
There I disagree. You are only entitled if you do YOUR part. Do you drink too much? Are you overweight? Why should the taxpayers be forced to care for you if you lack the discipline to care for yourself?
But I digress. I believe that each of is sidestepping the issue, and the issue begins with A. I just wonder why you don't want to mention the A word, either. Perhaps a pang of conscience that "they" may be right? I have no problem with anyone following that conscience. After all, my mother once confessed I was "an accident." I am so glad she followed her conscience, and decided to keep me around.
It would appear Rick wants to abolish the 13th amendment.
Alfred,
I meant that EPA and many Interior agencies are giving early outs and voluntary incentives to leave. Agencies are shrinking if they protect the health of animals or people, because all this administration cares about is oil and money
Al - I have volunteered hundreds and thousands of hours of medical care to others because it is something I can do well and other people can't. You have just explained why you should never go into medicine. Just stay retired, Al. And save me your spelling exercises.
Eric - don't try to tar me with that constitutional jab. It is your boys in the White House and Congress who are doing that right today as we speak. That you are a willing conspirator with and apoligist for them is shameful. If I did what you do routinely I'd wake in the middle of the night screaming, but then I have a conscience.
Yeah Rick, Constitutuion Schmonstitution. Why worry about what it says. Lets just bring back indentured servitude.
Secretary Zinke's admonishment that the staff at Glacier National Park should be more devoted to timber resources than visitor management shows him to be incredibly misinformed about the mission of the National Park Service. Or, does the Trump Administration intend to change the 1916 Organic Act, which is the current law guiding the management of the Parks? I think they are already over-reaching with the heavy-handed anti-environmental agenda.
As to leaving the Parks open during the upcoming government shutdown, it was not completely clear to me whether NPS law enforcement, SAR, and EMTs are considered "Essential" employees or not. Leaving the Parks open without the Rangers whose specialized skills provide essential services to the visiting public (many of whom are outside their element during Park visits) is an abdication of responsibility which would almost certainly result in needless deaths and injuries. While this is less important, the result would also most likely result in $Millions in tort claims against the federal government for encouraging people to continue visiting the Parks at a time when essential services are not available. At many National Park areas, local and state agencies, and volunteer SAR units do not have the resources to step up to fill the void from missing rangers. Also, some of the older Parks are Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction, severely limiting non-federal agencies from doing this. Lastly, from somebody who was a NPS Ranger for many years, most people don't know the incredible job NPS Rangers do for visitors, under nearly every condition imaginable. Some of the SAR and EMT specialists in places such as Yosemite and the Grand Canyon are unsurpassed in their professionalism, and they do incredible things to save lives and keep people safe. Keeping these Parks open without them would be totally irresponsible.
Fool, that is your buddy boys on the front page today forcing this nonsense through. I support the consitution. Only one of the two of us has fought to defend it, But I know how important it is for you to have the last word.
Bye, Felicia.
You may have "fought" but it wasn't to support the Constitution. If it where you wouldn't be working so hard to destroy its principles. But of course you have taken us far off subject. The key on point points are 1) Thankfully we aren't holding the parks hostage and 2)The blockade to a budget deal doesn't have anything to do with the budget.
One last time, because I'm not the topic.
You have never served in uniform, and have never been under hostile fire. Your scorn about my service is rude.
The rest is fertilizer.
Sorry, Kurt. I'm going away from this person for a bit.
No Rick, I did not serve in the military. My father did and was awarded the Silver Star, and Purple Heart and Distinguised Service Medal among many other service ribbons. He was buried with honors in Arlington National Cemetery along with my mother. I have the greatest respect for our "Greatest Generation" and recently visited Normandy with tears in my eyes. To suggest I would scorn anyone's military service is just ignorant and I never did yours. What I scorned was your current disrespect for the the Constitution and your insistence to make any discussion about you and to make personal attacks and insults of others. Why can't you discuss any topic without calling names or insulting people. You brought up the topic of someone being able to deny service to others. I pointed out the 13th amendment ended indentured servidude. You cound't debate that point so you had to go off in another direction to prove moral superiority. That is what I scorn, not your service.
Rick, I didn't go into medicine. I went into history. But when you talk of "volunteer" service, I believe I have thousands of hours, too--tutoring, for example, and writing my students great letters of recommendation, little of it for which I was directly "paid." You ought to try being a professor sometime--especially in this toxic age. As for your service, I say "thank you"--as I say it to every veteran. Unfortunately, I never did get to thank my father, who fought for the Kaiser in World War I. Trench warfare. Three years of brutality that only ended when the stretcher bearers dragged him off the field.
EC has a point. You always seem to want "points." I believe the conversation was about "forcing" people to do things against their conscience. You talk about the military. You do know what a conscientious objector is. If you take the Ten Commandments literally, you need not fire a gun. All that Mr. Trump is protecting is the same right for the rest of us. We need not go against our conscience just because someone in government demands it. Our only obligation is to be sincere.
Are we being sincere when we attack the President? All he asks is that the nation stop and think. How long can we keep giving amnesty to an underclass, and note that I did not say Dreamers. 40 percent of visitors overstay their visas, and they come from every country in the world. My brother-in-law married a woman from the Philippines, who once she had her green card totally changed her "personality." I sympathize. Her life in the Philippines was (Trump expletive). But again, how long can this go on?
Those tying the operation of our government to the awarding of amnesty, yes, wish to bring back indentured servitude. Only we are the indentured servants--forced to pay for everyone else who can't pay, even at the expense of our own needs.
Shut it down. I don't care. Put a fence around Yellowstone and throw away the key. Good scientists warned us in the 1960s and 1970s this would happen if we didn't get population growth under control. We had only 200 million people then; now we have 325 million. You think we can keep the national parks if we keep giving amnesty? Dream on.
I'm still wondering which National Park Service employees will be considered "Essential" personnel, and won't be sent home if a government shutdown occurs. I would think this would include maintenance employees who maintain water delivery and treatment systems, and probably the employees who clean the restrooms. Would this also include law enforcement, Search and Rescue, EMT's and paramedics? Does anybody know if this issue has been addressed by NPS Management? I can see near-total chaos in which many Park Employees don't know if they're working or not, since the Administration has announced its intention to keep the Parks "Open" during this shutdown.
At the beginning of the last shutdown, I was staying in a campground at the Grand Canyon, where I once worked as a Ranger. A campground ranger came around to all the campsites and politely advised that we needed to pack up and get ready to leave. She was very apologetic, but I told her that she had nothing to apologize for. While I was engaged in a pleasant conversation with her, a patrol ranger - apparently thinking I was arguing with her - came over with something of an attitude. Political dysfunction stresses employees, as I observed for myself, and many of us observed on TV during that last shutdown. A lot of our elected politicians of both political parties need to be voted out of office for this and other reasons.
And, back to the original topic of this thread -------- looks like we're about to find out.
I wonder if this is something Kurt would be interested in looking into. Here is a portion of an email I received today. "Sorry to pass on bad news on such a beautiful day, but believe it or not, the government shutdown affects our volunteer work. Liability insurance for volunteers is covered under the National Park Service Volunteers in Parks program, so we should not do any volunteer work for the time being. "
This sounds highly suspicious to me. What kind of insurance lapses like this? Don't try to tell me government employees are now going without insurance. Is this more about the NPS trying to make their own political point at the expense of the parks?
Here is a letter from Dr. Margaret Wheatley, one of the National Parks Advisory Board members who just resigned. It was published this morning as an op-ed in the Salt Lake Tribune.
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2018/01/20/commentary-i-resign...
Thank you for posting Lee, I appreciate Dr. Wheatly's comments, I think she is right on. Alfred, I do agree that Kurt and the "Traveler" provide an excellent service for parks and public land management.
Dr. Wheatley writes:
As external citizen-experts, we were a critical resource and support to park personnel. We provided energy, focus and allies to the issues and projects they had been wanting to do but could not move forward because of their own workloads.
Pardon me for pointing out what The Traveler has been saying all these years, but does Dr. Wheatley now wish to take credit for the mess the Park Service is in? And to have us believe it is an issue of "workloads?" Does that excuse every mistaken assumption of what the parks are--and how they should be run?
Bureaucrats love this kind of language. We should hate it, including all of the other adjectives she throws our way. If the noun means nothing, you can always give it an adjective. We were not just a resource, but rather a "critical" resource. Okay. Then why did you fail?
You didn't fail? But you said you were critical. If the Park Service couldn't live without you, how does that not make you complicit in its failures?
The truth, we know, is somewhat different. No one "listened" to the Advisory Board. Nor do they listen when The Traveler pleads for funds. No one wants to fund a critic.
Will we miss the board? I doubt it. But yes, The Traveler we would miss. So if you really believe Dr. Wheatley, send Kurt a check right now.
Civilian contractor???? I work in a park where 4 contractora are paid 280,000 dollars to mow grass for six months...that is all ..mow grass. Not p/u trash, clean restrooms, handle safety concerns or answer questions from visitors that 4 employees were doing for 24, 000 dollars apiece.. I rather see during this so called test to let the Chinese take over the Parks than the budget get further raped by contractors.
But as well all know...anything that gets as top heavy the Park Service starts bending in the middle and eventually will break into......
And they are. There are signs everywhere. In most the parks, even those with wild animals and dangerous features, face to face contact with a ranger is typically minimal to non existant. Like I said before, people recreate in millions of acres of non-NPS land that have the same animals and same dangers at the park and do so quite well without someone holding their hand.
Now that we have seen a picture of the one road with a tree (being removed) can we see the hundreds of miles of road that are being traveled with no issues? How about the veterans who have flown across the country visiting the war memorials in Washington - somethng that was denied the last time around.
What about them? Maybe they should elect representatives less cavalier about the civil service and less addicted to brinkmanship.
The “shutdown” is over of course. But had it continued, I doubt this administration would’ve pitched the tantrum that obama did in 2013, when he had park rangers actively chasing people out of the wildlife refuge near my home. Reminded me of a 2 year old beating his face into the floor when not getting his candy. And don’t forget the 90-something year old vets obama tried to keep out of the WWII Memorial. This time there were no rangers telling me to pack up my camera gear and get out. Nice to have adults back in the White House.
Pages