National Park Service Launches Website Honoring 22 World Heritage Sites In The United States

I'd like to think that the U.S.'s participation in this project helps draw international attention and support to other global sites imperiled by regional economic and political uncertainties.  Nice story to include for a New Year's Day issue of the Traveler.

I'd like to think that money could be far better spent in our parks rather than being wasted on bureaucrats and useless reports. 

If I recall correctly, the US stopped contributing to UNESCO in 2011.

Agreed.  If the reports are useful and the money not wasted on bureaucrats, it's money well spent on the project.

Thats what the funding reports indicate but as demonstrated in an earlier NPT article, the units are still preparing the "required" reports and otherwise meeting the criteria to be listed. 

Ummmm..EC, once again, you should EDUCATE yourself, before you speak about anything related to this topic.  These standards are directly related to the parks management in creating healthy ecosystems within the boundary, AND creating positive experiences for their visitors..  If Yellowstone's streams are heavily polluted, do you think it would be world recongnized for angling, and people would set out to fish the streams?  These are nothing more guidelines.  Our national parks are one of the few places that healthy ecosystems can be studied.  Do you not think that matters?  Probably not.  But National Parks are more than just a place for scenic views.  They are scientific study areas as well that help the human race learn about the natural world, and our planet.  I get it that you drink the tainted tea, and haven't a clue.. .but come on.  Less ignorance, please.

I am a bit surprised to see the negative comments about the US's contributions to the World Heritage Convention.  Wherever I have travelled outside the US, the people in those countries are immensely proud of their World Heritage Sites.  They see them as belonging to the people of the world, not just to the people of that country.  We should likewise be proud of our sites.  I worked in 4 World Heritage Sites, all national parks, in this country.  The amount of money we spent on what ec calls the criteria of the convention was miniscule.  The report required from Yelloiwstone comes from the fact that it was placed on UNESCO's danger list due to mining activities proposed outside, if I remember correctly, the Northeast entrance.  Of course, those who do not believe that entities such as UNESCO should have any influence in the US will oppose any US listing on the World Heritage convention.

The Paris office of the World Heritage convention does offer technical and a little bit of financial assistance to World Heritage sites in less developed nations.  I don't believe the US has ever asked for, or needed, such assistance. 

Some years ago, I wrote a World Heritage nomination for a site in a South American country.  The people from the country with whom I was working were proud that a site in their country would be considered for such a designation.  I would hope we feel that same pride about ours.

Rick

If Yellowstone's streams are heavily polluted, do you think it would be world recongnized for angling...

Do you think if Yellowstone were not a WHS it would pollute it streams?  We don't need a parasitic international organization to tell us how to run our parks. 

In the spirit of ec's approach to questioning comments, perhaps he'd like to give us some specific examples of how the organization in question in the above comment is "telling us how to run our parks." :-)

Thanks Rick, I agee with your comment.  If it wasn't for UNESCO, then places like Virunga could fall victim to the parasitic and extremely political nature of resource extraction.  "They're just freaking monkeys, and no one cares about monkeys"...  or so the shills claim.  Because it's a world heritage site, I believe it's helped promote it internationally, and promote a better economy for the people around that park. While Rwanda was falling victim to a civil war, the intenational cries to save the place and the Mountain Gorillas may have saved it from complete disintegration. 

Semanics,  but I'd say writing a report is merely a paperwork exercise; doesn't have any impact on "running the park." You'll disagree, so we can move on :-)

, but I'd say writing a report is merely a paperwork exercise. 

A useless paperwork excercise.  

Gary seems to think that WHS has a major impact on the operations on the parks and they would be polluted wastelands (my paraphrasing his position) if not under UNESCO's watchful eye.  Believe it or not, I am more in your camp and believe that the Parks would not operate in a substantially different way than they do if WHS designation didn't exist.  So the alternative is either WHS has no meaninful impact on the park - and thus is a worthless excercise, or WHS is materially changing how we managae our Parks and thus is a parasitic international organization telling us how to run our Parks. Either way, I don't like it. 

Ohh boy. . . who cares.  Let's move on from the perpetual trolling.  He truly takes the cake in cluelessness and 99.99% of the time doesn't even know what he is talking about. He's always against everything, it seems.  Stick to real estate. Maybe "titles" and "signing them" to exchange properties so realtors can just reap 5% of the cost is useless, a waste of time to all parties involved, and requires too much paperwork too.  EC has probably never even glanced at the rules of procedures, nor has any clue about how parks are nominated, and if they do make it on the list, how it is a pretty nice token of recongintion.  That's all I see this as - a TOKEN.  It's the National park equivalent to being at the top of the chain.. so once again, let's not allow him to "rowl" everyone up, like he loves to do.  It's like his daily drug to troll this site.

I think "the criteria" that is required to be a WHS being followed has an impact.  There's standards in Air Pollution, stream equality, and trying to keep things such as resource extraction out of the areas. If it's a historic site, maintaining the cultural site so that it remains preserved so that visitation, and even weathering from eroding it is a top priority. Having international standards so that many parks around the globe stick to standards is important.. Otherwise, they all become like a local city park in texas.  And if these places don't continue to meet the standards, then they simply get demoted and pulled off the list.  Regardless, of what the NPS travellers resident troll thinks, I think it's important that the top parks in this nation do meet some levels of environmental protection criteria to be recognized as World Heritage Sites, and to a lesser extent Biosphere Reserves.  Could you imagine the world we'd live in if the tea trolls had their way with everything..  Boy, we'd be back in the dark ages.... Science would be shunned because it would offend their mytholgy.

Boy, we'd be back in the dark ages..

No Gary, that is what you are calling for, the rejection of modern civilization in favor of "Wilderness". 

Protecting some wilderness and natural ecosystems in this country does not send this country back to the dark ages, troll.  Did I call to turn over silicon valley to a forest reserve?  NO, I did not.  Protecting some habitat around the world is important.  Especially protecting habitats that provide clean drinking water, and cleans that air that we breath.  Now get a clue for once.

I meet visitors from all over the world, they are all delighted that we Americans are sharing in the world heritage designations.

What does that mean?  We wouldn't let them into our Parks if the Parks weren't WHSs?  How absurd is that.  WHS designation is one of thousands of designations (governmental and private) for all sorts of "causes" that have been created that have no other purpose than to employ (and enrich) the sponsoring organization and its people.

Protecting some wilderness and natural ecosystems in this country does not send this country back to the dark ages,

No less than asking for fiscal responsibility and Constitutional integrity (the Tea Party agenda) will.

ec--As the Supreme Court has shown us over the years, Constitutional integrity is a matter of interpretation; it is not written in stone.  As to fiscal responsibility, government shutdowns and failures to raise the debt limit don't demonstate much of that.

Rick

Rick, disagree with you on both counts.  The Constitution IS written in stone.  The fact the Supreme Ct has ignored its words in the past  and chosen to "interpret" it in unintended ways does not make it right.  Further, the answer to irresponsible spending isn't applying for a new credit card. 

What about irresponsible trolling?

Agreed, Rick.  The Constitution never spells out how it should be interpreted (for the obvious reason that if it did, that itself would be subject to interpretation, creating a hermeneutic circle)--hence, the allocation of "judicial review" to the Supremes.  People may disagree about how the Constitution should be interpreted, but those disagreements are one of political philosophy--or ideology--which cannot be resolved within the framework of the Constitution itself.

Justin and Rick,

The founding fathers were quite clear in their intent as expressed in the words of the Constitution and in the Federalists and Anit-Federalist papers as well as other contemporary documents.  They were also quite clear on the method for changing the Constitution if the public so desired.  It was not their desire to write a loose document that was subject to the whims of government officials in the future.  In fact, the entire purpose was just the opposite - to limit government to specificly identified powers.  The progressive movement has been a complete perversion of those principles and our nation has suffered for it. 

The founding fathers were quite clear in their intent as expressed in the words of the Constitution

1) I don't know what this means.  Are you saying that the Constitution is not subject to intepretation?

. . . and in the Federalists and Anit-Federalist papers as well as other contemporary documents

2) Where does the Consitution say that the Federalist Papers, etc.  and/or the intent of the Founders should be consulted in order to correctly intepret the Constitution?

Are you saying that the Constitution is not subject to intepretation?

I am saying the Founding Fathers had an intent when they wrote the Constitution.  Any "interpretation" that is contrary to that intent is a perversion of the intent - and thereby of the Constitution. 

Where does the Consitution say that the Federalist Papers, etc. and/or the intent of the Founders should be consulted in order to correctly intepret the Constitution?

Nowhere - because they didn't anticipate the Constitution to be "interpreted".  But it was the common practice of early efforts to "interpret" because pre the progressive era, there was a desire to follow the intent of the Founders if there was a lack of clarity and that is the core position of the Tea Party today, to follow the intent of the Founders

{added}  And even today "legislative intent" is an important element in many court decisions. 

Times change, new information, science, pressing issues of population, distribution of resources, well the list is endless, require new conversations.

Yes Ron, and the Constitution provides  a way to change to accomodate those.  Ignoring the actually wording and just "interpreting" it differently isn't that way.  In fact it was exactly that which the Founding Fathers were trying to prevent.  What purpose would the Constitution serve if it could be altered or ignored at the will of the current administration?

I am saying the Founding Fathers had an intent when they wrote the Constitution. Any "interpretation" that is contrary to that intent is a perversion of the intent - and thereby of the Constitution.

1) Which "Founding Fathers"?  You seem to be using this phrase to refer a discrete and easily identifiable number of men who co-wrote the document.  And how do we know what their "intent" was, when even scholars disagree about the meaning of, for example, the Federalist Papers?

Nowhere - because they didn't anticipate the Constitution to be "interpreted".

2)Who didn't anticipate this?  

3) And, again, why should the "intent of th Founders"--whatever this means--be the basis of a "correct" interpretation of the Constitution?

You seem to be using this phrase to refer a discrete and easily identifiable number of men who co-wrote the document.

Because there are a discrete and easily identifiable number of men who co-wrote the document let by James Madision who was a major contributor to the Federalist Papers and quite clear in his intent. 

Because there are a discrere and easily identifiable number of men who co-wrote the document

So, who are they?

ec--Honest, intelligent people read the Constitution differently, even though the words remain constant.  A good example is the Second Amendment.  A better way to make your argument is to say that your interpretation (or mine) is written in stone.   And even my interpretation (or yours, I imagine) has changed over time due to the conditions that Ron mentioned. 

Ignoring the Constitution has been a charge leveled at any number of administrations, not just the current one.  That's why Federal courts exist and why the Senate must confirm the people the President proposes to appoint to them.  I'm sure that is what the authors of the Constitution had in mind.

Rick

And, again, why should the "intent of th Founders"--whatever this means--be the basis of a "correct" interpretation of the Constitution?

You are kidding with that one, right?

A good example is the Second Amendment.

Yes, a very good example.  The words and intent were quite clear and followed for 100+ years.  Progressive have since tried to change it through "interpretation" rather than the amendment process, which was also quite clearly laid out. 

So, who are they?

You can find a list here: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_delegates_to_the_Continental_Congress

It's a complete waste of time trying to respond to trolls.  Use the IGNORE button and return to the subject at hand.

You are kidding with that one, right?

Not at all.  Why should I be kidding?  You've insisted that the intent of the Founders, etc. should be the basis for reading the Constitution but have not explained 1)why other theories of Consitutional interpretation are wrong.  According to what criteria are they wrong and intent correct? 2) Nor addressed the well-known problem of gleaning intent.

Are you really claiming that the Delegates to the Continental Congress co-wrote the Constitution?

Are you really claiming that the Delegates to the Continental Congress co-wrote the Constitution?

My mistake, picked up the wrong link.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marryff.html

And yes, I believe the intent of the authors should be the basis for reading the Constitution.  For what purpose was it written if not to solidify the authors' intent?

You can certainly believe that "intent of the authors" (as wildly problematic as that may be) should be the basis for reading the Constituion, but what is that basis?  What makes that belief correct and (other) theories of Constitutional interpretation "wrong"?  According to what criteria is your belief in "Founder's intent" correct and, say, "structuralism" or "textualism" wrong?  Or how is Scalia's rejection of "intent"  in favor of "originalism" wrong?

What makes that belief correct and (other) theories of Constitutional interpretation "wrong"?

So you think the intent of the authors is irrelevant to the document they wrote but that the "interpretation" by someone 200 years later is?  You can't really be serious.  If an author of a book says "this is what I was trying to say" but someone 200 years later says that his interpretation is something different, was the author "wrong"?

But then this is all beside the point.  The point is that the Tea Party stands for the Constitution as it was orginally written and implemented. The question isn't of right or wrong, the question is what end results are they seeking and that includes limited government and liberty.  

So you think the intent of the authors is irrelevant to the document they wrote but that the "interpretation" by someone 200 years later is?

Where have I ever expressed this?

The question isn't of right or wrong.

But you've been saying that it is, in your repsonse above to Rick:

The Constitution IS written in stone. The fact the Supreme Ct has ignored its words in the past and chosen to "interpret" it in unintended ways does not make it right.

Again, why are the alternative methods of Consitutional interpretation not correct?  On what basis?

On the basis that ec says so.  Don't you get it?

Rick

Where have I ever expressed this?

Either you believe their intent should be followed or you don't.  Your argument seems to be their intent isn't important.  If you agree their intent should be followed, we have no argument.

On what basis?

On the basis that it isn't what the authors' intended.  The authors wrote what they meant and explained what they meant.  The fact that someone today doesn't agree with their intent and ignores it isn't "interpretation" it is perversion and/or rejection. 

Guys -- speaking as a former wrestling-in-the-mud guy may I introduce you to the peace and calm of the Ignore Button? So what if some other blowhard claims "victory" by having the last word in an on-line argument? Reminds me of the little gecko who loudly proclaimed to all that he was a brontosaurus on his mother's side. It costs nothing to smile quietly and walk away.

Either you believe their intent should be followed or you don't. Your argument seems to be their intent isn't important.

Where have I ever expressed this as my argument above?  How does this address the well-known problem of reconstructing "intent" (which would need to be prior to a belief in whether one should or shouldn't)?

On the basis that it isn't what the authors' intended.

In the context of my question, this states that reading the Constitution according to the  authors' intent is correct and other methods of Consitutional interpretation are incorrect based on the author's intent.  How could the object of interpretation be the basis for invalidating alternative methods of interpretation?

The fact that someone today doesn't agree with their intent and ignores it isn't "interpretation" it is perversion and/or rejection.

What method of Consitutional interpretation consitutes not "agreeing with their intent"?  It's not textualism, originalism, strict constructionism.  What is it that you are referring to here?

Once again, you haven't provided any basis for claiming that "Founder's intent" is correct and that (other) methods of Constitutional interpretation (e.g. textualism, strict constructionalism, etc.) are incorrect.

Where have I ever expressed this as my argument above?

It seems to be the basis for your position.  Perhaps I have interpreted that wrong.  Let's set the record straight.  Do you believe the original intent should be followed?  Yes or no?

Once we get that established we can move on. 

We can move on once you explain on what basis  "Founders' intent" is correct and (other methods of) Consitututional interpretation are not.  I was just responding to Rick; you initiated this exchange and made the claim.

Nice article and a few good comments until the comments got way off track.  I so hate it when my autologin fails and I can see the posts from folks who are ignored normally.  Thanks Lee for reminding me to relogin.   Just remember folks, trolls are not constitutional scholars and arguing with the uninformed is a pointless exercise.  

We can move on once you explain on what basis "Founders' intent" is correct and (other methods of) Consitututional interpretation are not.

How could the "Founder intent" be anything but correct?  They wrote the document.  We certainly can argue what their intent was - though I believe in most cases it is clearly defined - but I can't fathom how someone could argue that their "intent" isn't what the Constitution stands for.