Has the time come to ban comments on the Traveler? That's not a philosophical question or a parlor game, but one driven by concerns among readers that constructive conversation is hard to come by on the site.
By and large, the volume of comments on the Traveler is dominated by a very, very small handful of individuals. And they can, at times, take things to extremes and give no quarter. More than a few times various commenters have accused others of being trolls, simply lurking out there, waiting to bait others into an argument, or made gratuitous comments, and worse.
And a handful of times a year we get private emails complaining about this behavior. Here's just the most recent example:
The NPT comments section has long been hijacked by conservative/libertarian trolls like ecbuck to the point that many of us who would *like* to engage in conversation and intelligent discourse regarding park issues are dissuaded from doing so by the truculent, confrontational, repetitive and axe-grinding nature of such ideologues. I am disappointed in your feckless moderation of the comments section because the parks are my passion and I would love to contribute, but I have come to the realization that I should take my participation -- and views of your ads -- elsewhere.
Now, whether Traveler's moderation of the comments queue is feckless is a matter of opinion. But we can tell you that we lack the manpower it takes to moderate on as strenuous a basis as some might hope.
What begs a question is whether there would be greater reader participation if the comments weren't seemingly monopolized by a handful of readers, some unafraid to wield an ax? With nearly 1.7 million readers a year, and less than a dozen regular commenters, you have to wonder.
Frankly, nothing would be more welcome to us than to see more reader involvement in the site.
The only lasting solution would be to bring an end to comments, which would be unfortunate, as we truly believe conversation is key to understanding, and possibly solving, some of the issues that the national parks face. Over the years we have reached out to those most criticized, have tried "no follow" buttons, and even banned folks, all to no avail.
So, how would you handle this situation?
While you ponder that question, let us repost our Code of Conduct for those who comment:
Code of Conduct
The blogosphere is a pretty free-wheeling place. As a result, it has developed a persona, right or wrong, of playing fast and loose with facts, with running roughshod over some posters, with allowing anonymity to serve as a shield for attackers. Some bloggers have called for a code of conduct for the blogosphere, and we at the Traveler support that movement.
As I mentioned recently, we view the Traveler as more of a web magazine than a blog. But that doesn't lessen the need for a code of conduct, both to guide the Traveler's writers and to let those who desire to comment on our articles to know there are limits as to what is appropriate.
For those who might immediately jump to the conclusion that we're implementing a measure of censorship, that's not the case at all. Rather, just as there are accepted norms for what can be broadcast and printed in mainstream media, there are accepted norms for the interchange of ideas on the Traveler. All we expect from you is a measure of civility. Here's how Colin Rule, director of the Center for Internet and Society, addresses the expectation of civil discourse:
So is it true that civility and politeness should go out the window when confronted with deep and intense feelings? Well, not to sound too much like "Mr. Manners," but I think it's at that point that civility and politeness come to matter more. When emotions get the better of someone, and that person uses language intended to incite and shock rather than reason, it creates an easy target for the other side; the most likely response becomes a similar provocative statement, and then the exchange becomes focused on the excesses of each statement rather than the issues at hand.
Beyond an expectation of civility there are times when, quite frankly, just as radio and television moderators feel a need to redirect their guests back to the subject at hand, it might be appropriate for us to steer the flurry of comments back to the topic at hand. And we won't hesitate to do that, as we have a very well specified mission statement that guides this patch of cyberspace.
With that said, here are some general guidelines that will guide the code of conduct for the Traveler (with the understanding that they could continue to evolve):
* The authors of posts take responsibility for their words.
* Abusive comments and personal attacks will not be tolerated and will be deleted.
* Those behind abusive comments and personal attacks will be contacted privately and asked to be more constructive in their comments. If the comments and attacks persist, the author will be blocked from the site.
* Don't say anything online that you wouldn't say in person.
* If a subject of a post feels they have been wronged or simply wishes to respond in a post as opposed to a comment, that will be allowed.
In general, we at the Traveler have been pretty tolerant of comments. That's been evidenced most recently by some made this past weekend that were allowed to stand. We do not want to sanitize this forum, nor do we want to create the impression that it tilts one way or the other politically or philosophically. Yet there is a line, one that should not be crossed, in the common decency of civil discourse. If all you can do is throw stones and slurs, take it elsewhere.
Anonymous comments will continue to be allowed because there obviously are times when whistleblowers want to shield their identity, when the topic is political dissent, and when the individual doesn't want his/her comments attached to the organization they work for. That said, we encourage those who do not fall under those situations to be up front with who they are and not rely on what's been termed "drive by anonymity" to attack someone.
Regardless of how you decide to identify yourself, you are expected to adhere to the points above.
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.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
I hate to say it, but I agree with parts of your email example. I notice this in particular with what I call "hot button articles" on the Traveler. I read those articles and then I immediately wonder just how long it will take for several commenters I see regularly to begin the argument that ultimately evolves into absolutely nothing to do with the article itself but instead morphs into a mud-slinging to-and-fro. I notice this same phenomenon occurring on other sites allowing comments. What begins with comments pertaining to the post at large ultimately disintegrate into something totally different - usually along the lines of politics or religion. I've read somewhere that even sites like NPR may dispense with the comments portion.
I also notice what you have mentioned about the same few regular commenters in each article. I see that on my Facebook page and on other photographers' Facebook pages. There may be thousands of "Likes" for a page as a whole, but only the same few people regularly like or comment on a photo posted.
While I would be sorry to see the comments section go, I totally understand the reasoning for it and would not be surprised if you remove that aspect of this site.
Couldn't you just not read the comment section instead of limiting something others might find of value?
Makes sense to me.
Online comments are gradually being phased out among several top news sites, because so many are hijacked by the vocal few who have little real interest in a respectful, back-and-forth dialogue. One model is to let people comment on stories through social media, but on your own site go back to a "letters to the editor" model, where writers have to be reasoned and thoughtful in their arguments. Another question to consider is whether "greater reader participation" is really what you want, or "greater reader thoughtfulness and understanding." Sometimes less is more.
You've probably seen this interview on the subject, but it's interesting: http://www.niemanlab.org/2015/09/what-happened-after-7-news-sites-got-ri...
I'd hate to see the comments section of Traveler go away because of the same issues that other publications have experienced from just a few commenters who seem to need to start a war of words. Many times the comments end up not having a thing to do with the article in question. I love National Park Traveler and all the valuable information I have gained from the many writers. I feel as though I am right along with them on various hikes and campouts. I have also gained a tremendous amount of good information about issues facing our National Park Service and the good folks that keep that engine running for all of us. I understand completely if the comments section need to go away. Frankly I won't miss any of those folks that like to post the same outlandish comments over and over and over. This will leave more room for folks like Mr. Repanshek to share his amazing adventures and knowledge with people like me.
I agree with Rebecca's comments. That said, I'd hate to see commenting banned on The Traveler. On the one hand, there has been contentious, yet nevertheless, interesting and productive discourse around issues such as land management and the philosophical mission of the parks. (I've participated in some of this--sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing, and sometimes finding my mind changed, in discussions with mountain bikers, Dr. Runte, etc. In fact, I've occassionally been so impressed with the thoughtfulness of these dialogues that they themselves seem to really complement/complete the article itself.) On the other hand, it's obvious that one or a few readers simply use articles as prextexts to taunt other readers and to hijack the discussion in order to register some completely unrelated political resentment. I'm not quite sure where this latter situation is addressed in the Code of Conduct, but it clearly lowers the level of discourse at The Traveler.
As the subject of your emailers' attack I feel compelled to comment. It is noteworthy that he attributes the "hijacking" and "troll" activity only to conservative/libertarian posters even though there are even more on the liberal side that engage in equal or even greater confrontational banter. I suspect his objection is really the content rather than the nature of the comments themselves. I am sorry if he objects to one asking for substantiation of idle conjecture, intentional slender or claimed fact. I believe that statements, unless specifically identified as opinion, made in the article or the comments should be based on actual facts that can be substantiated and that challanging those that aren't is a service to the community. Managing the parks based on myths serves noone well. I am also sorry he finds some comments repetitive. But again that is because some comments themselves are repeated as truths but when challanged the challanges go unanswered. And while the conversation may occasionally slip off topic (driven by both sides), the Parks don't exist in a vacuum. Policies that effect the parks often eminate from policies on economics, weather, resource development ........ I believe many enjoy the comments and learn from them. I do. And I know that I will never convince "the other side" to change their opinion as they know they are unlikely to change mine. But the millions that do read and don't post may not have as strong an opinion. Getting them the facts - or at least a balanced discussion of the facts - may help them make-up or change their own minds. But in the end there is a simple solution. If you don't like the comments, don't read them. The only rationale for a ban would be to block the opinions of those with whom you disagree, an activity that already occures far too often.
But in the end there is a simple solution. If you don't like the comments, don't read them.
Exactly.
It's not the fault of those that do take the time to express their opinions that others don't so the same, and therefore a few dominate the discussions.
This board is mild compared to almost all others that I read. There's virtually no vulgarity. While personal attacks do exist, if one posts in a public forum, they do so knowing that somebody is likely to disagree, and may not be particularly considerate about how they respond. It's called needing to have a thick skin.
Some moderation might be useful in controlling attacks as well as obviously off-topic comments. Banning individual posters who break the board rules for a period of time (perhaps third strike results in permanent expulsion) is a possibility, but perhaps would require more effort than is desirable or possible.
In my opinion, banning comments here would be a mistake.
A Code of Conduct is only worth something if it is enforced.
If (a) it is known that comments are regularly "hijacked" by a vocal few; (b) NPT lacks the resources to moderate said comments; and (c) because of (a) and (b), the comments actually contribute little value, then I see no point of having a comments section at all. Yes, comments can be valuable, but only if they provide information. If your signal-to-noise ratio is comprised almost purely of noise, what's the point?
I'd be sad to see reader comments ended on NPT. This is one of the best national forums for criticism of National Park Service management, a cult-like group that sadly needs all the criticism and spin correction it can get. Compared to many internet forums, NPT is actually quite civil. Perhaps the more annoying, off-topic personal exchanges could be reduced by limiting user's comments per article or per day/week?
This is a major problem with all social media.At one time it was the place to find the real underlying issues to a written article.But too ofter it has become a place just spew useless attacks on the next person.
I really no longer place much value on most blogs because of this so called troll atmosphere we live in.
We are put on this wonderful planet earth to love and help the next human. It has become anything but that with wreck less insults more often than not..
This is a wonderful website with lots of useful information that often gets lost for all the wrong reasons.
Kurt - I would be interested to know what prompted your emailer to write. I assume this was a recent email. I reveiwed the comments for the last two weeks. Of the 23 articles that had comments, I posted on 4. One was a dicussion on pot and the impact of legalization on cartels and growing in National Forests. A very civil discussion with no name calling and fully on topic. A second was a discussion of dogs in the parks. Certainly disagreement but again civil and on topic. Number 3 was the refinery near Roosevelt Park. Here I challanged the often repeated but never substantiated myth of consensus on global warming. The challange was to an infrequent (first time?) poster. Here Rick B jumped in with an attack on me, not the other way around. And while the conversation may have been deemed "off topic" it was the other poster that took it in that direction, not me. Finally was the discussion of the Congressal Scorecard. I did research on the survey methodology and exposed the suvey for what it was, apartisan attack not a survey using generally acceptable statistical practices. I presented facts and attacked noone It was I that was attacked by Rick and Lee, not the other way around. Once again I suggest your emailer is upset with the content of my comments not the tone. Some people just don't want to hear things that contradict their beliefs, especially when those things are true.
Kurt, you and I have talked about this repeatedly, and I plead "guilty" to my own lapses. However, what do you think it was like at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, or debating the Thirteenth Amendment in Congress in 1865? Ideas are always contentious, and yes, often morph into many things.
My solution remains a simple one. Every comment should be treated as a letter to the editor, in other words, everyone has to sign his or her actual name. Actually, the most vociferous commentators have already done that for the most part, so I have no problem with their views or style. In universities, I used to live under a cloud of secrecy defending "scholarship." I would rather have The Traveler any day of the week. Yes, EC bugs me at times, but he is consistent. And he always signs his name. Against that, I remember all of the knives in the back wielded by academe. The most disingenuous people are still found in colleges and universities, and you can take that opinion to the bank.
Censorship is a slippery slope. The moment you insist on "purity" of thought and action, you are likely to get everything but. Take all of the "safe zones" now springing up at universities. Since when was life ever "safe?" You don't want to be offended? Sorry, but opinion offends, to say nothing of ideas. Now that we have safe zones, i.e., censorship, we don't have universities worthy of the name. Oh, but your opinions are hurtful to people. Yes, and get used to that in a democracy. When I was a kid and my school mates called me fat, it hurt, but it also was the truth.
Facing the truth I lost 80 pounds. Lying to myself I kept right on eating. We battle with images and opinions opposite to ours every day. That doesn't mean those opinions are wrong. Last Saturday in The Wall Street Journal, I read one of the best articles I have ever read, by David Gelernter, a professor at Yale. "[Our] schools are corrupt and the universities rotten to the core, and everyone has known it since the 1980s. But the Democrats are owned by the teachers unions, and the Republicans have made only small-scale corrections to a system that needs to be ripped out and carefully disposed of, like poison ivy. The Emasculated Voter to whom no one pays any attention is the story of modern democracy. Instead of putting voters in charge, we tell them they're in charge, and it's just as good. That's the Establishment's great discovery in the Lois Lerner Age."
Is that not the problem The Traveler wrestles with itself? The people in power don't want the oversight, so they tell us we're too harsh. A good friend, and a great father, husband, and grandfather, recently lost his position simply because one of his newest employees, behind his back, accused him of being "insensitive." What in God's name is that, if not a power play meant to destroy ideas?
No, The Traveler's commentators are hardly perfect--including me. But I have found all of them sincere. If we want a better Park Service--and better national parks--we will not let that sincerity go just because a few of us find the truth "insensitive."
I agree that sometimes what I read in the comment section, has sometimes risen to a level that is probably offensive to a few. But I for one enjoys reading the comments almost as much as the articles. Yes you have a few that pick at each other. I accept that ecbuck is not going to agree with the grand concensus of scientists on global warming or my opinion of it. So be it. But i feel there are always going to be doubters on all subjects. If the discussion stays away from being personal, all responses should be accepted. I enjoy that Eric makes me put my opinions to test. I may not argue with him but I respect his percpective. I do agree that if commenters can add something to the discussion, they should aim to be accepting of differing opinions when presenting their own view. But lets not make the comments be just one view.
Alfred, Nice comment. I especially agree with your last paragragh. " I have found them all sincere." Not sure I agree about your opinion of annonimity though. I think there are times when that may be important for an insider's protection but getting at the truth.
It is a problem, and I myself complained at one time. I also find that I have been reading the traveler less because of the lack of civility in the comments. I enjoy and read comment sections specifically because it offers another viewpoint and perspective. I want to hear opposing views as long as they are respectful no matter how much I may disagree. It is a chance to lean something. If you want a forum where everyone agrees with each other than what is the point? I don't run a website but if I did I think I would enact a 3 strikes rule. Violate the code of conduct and get a warning, second time a suspension, third time you are done. Perhaps this isn't practical, certainly difficult to keep personal bias out and is bound to cause anger in some. Finally, I’m not surprised at the comment critical of ebuck since I have a pretty good idea where it came from, I am surprised they can't see how offensive their own comments frequently are. While ebuck can certainly be argumentative he does so far more civilly and respectfully than some of those who disagree with him. It is a shame because it greatly detracts from what are often good points.
I like tahoma's proposal to limit each user to some number (I would make it a low number, like 2) of comments per week or per article.
Excellent idea,this way the person can make his point and not continue to blast away at every other persons remark.
This would certainly bring an end to pages and pages of a topic that by the end isn't even on the original topic.
I have a hard time believing that the letter reprinted above represents the genuine sentiments of many readers.
First of all, most of the informational articles I read on NPT receive 0 comments, and I highly doubt that people are avoiding the comboxes due to fear of trolling. It's likely that they just don't have anything interesting to say. It's the opinion pieces that attract the most comments and lead to some of the more "stimulating" discussions. Isn't that the purpose of an opinion article? To provoke discussion?
Second of all, I don't think anyone can dispute that the overall editorial perspective of NPT is left-of-center. The combox provides an opportunity for those with other political perspectives (yes, we love the Parks, too!) to interact and even disagree with the conclusions promulgated in the opinion pieces posted here. In some cases, like that ludicrous Congressional "report card" posted a couple of weeks ago, the bias is so transparent that it's difficult to be "constructive".
Yes, some of us can be very passionate about certain issues, whether it is environmental protection, recreation on public lands, access for those with diabilities, or government corruption. As long as the focus is on the issues and not personal attacks or insults, I don't think heated debate is going to drive people away.
When, from time to time, comments stray somewhat from the original article, it may simply be additional proof that John Muir was correct when he said that everything in the universe is connected to everything in the universe.
Our parks don't exist on some other universe. What happens in Washington or even in Antarctica can profoundly affect a park in Wyoming or Utah or some Pacific island.
Problems arise when comments devolve into a continual endless round-robin argument that is simply unwinnable. I've been making a sincere attempt to avoid falling into that trap. We all simply need to state our opinions, support them with data when we can (recognizing that some data is almost impossible to cite when it is deliberately hidden by those who are in power), and then stand back and let other readers evaluate what we've said to determine whether or not they agree or disagree.
Simply striving to have the last word is not productive.
As a fan of NPT and a frequent commenter, I have to join Dr Runte in a mea culpa. I often post with emotion, and also often throttle myself back and just shut up for a while when I find myself particularly egregious. I would hate to see commenting go the way of the dodo. I will respect Kurt's wishes, as I have over the years when I have receeived an email from him basically saying, "Hey Rick, can you settle down please?"What I won't do today is to point a finger and name names about why it isn't my fault or how the other dude did it or whatever.
Best of wishes, Kurt, in whatever you decide to do or not do.
One way to handle "hijacking" is to insist that everyone who logs in offers their first and last name and that the names are printed with the comments. Otherwise, these trolls have no accountabitliy.
If you can't stand behind your beliefs - conservative, liberal or otherwise - I don't want to hear from you. You may have noticed that the most belligerent comments are from anonymous people.
Danny Bernstein
www.hikertohiker.com
Kurt, if moderating comments has become a source of stress or tension for you, close them. You can reopen them later if you change your mind. This is your (very useful and informative) blog, and no one can tell you how to spend your time on it.
A midpoint between unrestricted comments and no comments might be taking them in a letter-to-the-editor type format, reviewing them, and publishing a single weekly post, say, of the best received. This doesn't allow commenters to play ping-pong below the line, of course, but it allows for the submission and publication of additional remarks that are pertinent to the subjects of the posts. However, this form of moderation may also be fairly time-consuming.
Moderation is not censorship.
I support keeping the comments. Perhaps those who want to be anonymous could at the least tell the rest of us why. Some may have good reasons such as they are employed and fear retribution. I get a little tired of some of the back and forth by some, but we must all admit it adds a little entertainment to what might otherwise be a pretty dry discussion. Some get into personal attacks and to them I suggest sleep on your comments for a night or run it by a friend or spouse before sending it. I should try that myself.
I have a solution to the problem.
Any time there is a disputed point regarding the NPS, the disputers need to be redirected to the latest edition of THUNDERBEAR. In Thunderbear, one will find the unvarnished and totally unbiased truth about the NPS, Congress, the environment, politics and a host of other interesting topics.
Besides, it will make you laugh and perhaps a little more laughter is something we all can use.
PJ Ryan has just published issue 301. Google Thunderbear and enjoy.
Lee,
Thanks for bringing up THUNDERBEAR. I have been out of the loop since I retired in 2000. I will definitely Google and sign up!
I think the comments should stay, even though they sometimes get tedious and annoying. It's not the opposing points of view that are the problem for me, but rather the absolute need by some to counter each minor point of other comments and insist on getting the last words in all the time. Of course, the solution to just skip over those commments is fine, but the frequent feeling of "here we go again" doesn't engender a feeling of happiness at being here.
However, the comments that lend positive information, agreeing or disagreeing with an article or other comment, are worthwhile holding onto, and for that reason, I think the comments are valuable in general.
I support the idea of having all commentators use their real names. Those who feel they must cloak their identity can go elsewhere, Most of the peiople whose comments I read seriously use their names.
But, Rick, as others have pointed out, there are a few who may have legitimate concerns of retaliation if they use their names. What about asking Kurt to develop some kind of method by which a person in that situation might ask for a waiver to the policy if they present to him legitimate reasons for anonymity.
As one who seldom comments ... but reads many that others contribute ... all I can do is shake my head and wonder at this entire thread. If a comment troubles your delicate ego so much ... then quite reading it and find another topic that suits your mindset more appropriately. No one is forcing anyone to read anything here. Good grief! Personally, although I may disagree with a comment, I fail to understand the "safe place" mentality that is prevalent among so many today.
Painview, I agree. I enjoy reading the comment section, I think most that comment support and enjoy our public lands. No one person has all the answers. Reading other perspectives is informative, weather I am in agreement or not. This is one website where I both read the articles and the comment section. I do think it is important to state in your opinion, or based on your experience, the research you have done, etc., we all see things a little bit differently, that needs to be respected. The older I get I am finding that issues can be much more complex than they may first appear, or the whole story is yet on the table. Reading other viewpoints or experiences is helpful. Generally speaking, personal attacks are not very effective, I think we all try to stay away from them and Traveler is good at interceding when we get to off base.
What is the big deal? If you do not like how a comment is going then skip over it. If you know a particular commenter irritates you, then don't read his/her comments. How about freedom of speech as long as it does not threaten someone. I personally detest vulgarity in the comments but if i see it i move on and ignore it. If someone wants to be an idiot so be it. Let freedom ring.
All you have to do is mention climate change and you get the wacos saying it ain't so, no matter what the subject of the article.
Don't forget, Argalite, that the Obama Administration made climate change one of its salient issues, and speedily applied it to the national parks. So, yes, it comes up from time to time, since the so-called solution, as I would put, recommends cutting off our leg to save our toe.
It's a legimate concern--and comment thread. Just two weeks ago, my wife Christine and I "visited" the Ivanpah Solar Power Plant bordering the Mojave National Preserve. "My, God," Christine exclaimed. "I had no idea that the plant was so large." Coming off the mountain and into Nipton, one of the heliostats--or an entire bank of them--was obviously out of sync. It burned right through our sunglasses and into our retinas, although I had to look or I couldn't drive. It's not whacko, as you put it, to question something that endangers both the land and health. We saw no "streamers" (birds incinerated while flying over the plant), but our eyes took hours to recover.
We can do better, I think, and had better do better before insisting that climate change is in fact the threat. On that score, allow me to assign all of you a bit of reading from a friend who happens to agree with renewable energy, sans those abusing the fear of climate change. The book, just out from Rowman & Littlefield, is: Daniel B. Botkin, 25 MYTHS THAT ARE DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT: WHAT MANY ENVIRONMENTALISTS BELIEVE AND WHY THEY ARE WRONG. The book is a lesson in how to debate these issues without engaging in endless hyperbole. Meanwhile, it would be good for all of us to examine our "beliefs" once in awhile, since rarely is a belief good science. It may be good politics, but that is another story. Science allows for what we are debating here.
Which is: How to comment from a position of intellectual strength (you've thought about it) rather than be another stray following the herd. If you've thought about it, no one will get under your skin. For to have thought about someting gives your opinion strength. The wonderful thing about The Traveler is how many people have indeed thought about the issues. Now, if someone doesn't want climate change to be an issue, sorry, but it is. And no one on The Traveler made it that way. It rather started with those 25 myths.
Well Alfred, I just ordered the book for my kindle. The brief review on Amazon got my interest also.
Is is quite interesting to hear Danny Bernstein complain about anonymous comments when the chief antagonist and one of the primary reasons this whole thread is even in play is because one of her own GSMA employees is the chief ad hominem protagonist. I know for a fact there have been many complaints about this guy who feels the need to attack people, instead of the subject matter. And more than a few phone calls have been made to the Great Smoky Mtns Association as a result, not that anyone there cared. Perhaps you should get your own GSMA house in order before telling everyone else what to do. If I don't like a comment, then I don't have to read it. But no one should have to read your employees rants about people's religion etc. Kurt is just too nice to eject him like other forums have.
That's hilarious coming from you johnny. The fact is I never commented on this site, until I grew tired of reading your baseless accusations and constant garbage that you post in this comment section. That is what triggered me to comment on an article in which supplied baseless accusations that eventually were proven false in a court of law. Like Trump, you could'nt handle the results. I realize you would like to see me go away because it would be easier for you since few that are in the Smokies will call you out on your BS, but i'll continue to call you out on your baseless accusations, if needed. And I even use my real name, because I'm not ashamed or fearful of what I say. I also am not afraid to wrestle in the mud with trolls and lowlifes when I feel they are wrong, and misguided. Obviously, with the hostility that people like you and EC create in this forum, it does make this comment section rather pointless to develop interesting and useful dialogue and that's probably why so many that are currently enganged with parks avoid it like the plague. Many of the regualars seem to comment here are either retirees, or anonomoys posters that have some sort of vendetta against the Park Service because of one or two rules that were implemented over the years. There are better places to discuss issues related to the NP's than in this comment section.
That is why this comment section is rather pointless in it's overall effectiveness. This comment section is never going to be an accurate or real voice to change or critique the way parks are managed. While the NPT does supply good op-eds from time to time, and also touches on many park related issues that rarely make it on the mainstream news, the comment section will remain a pointless joke, perfect for the John Quillens of the world, but not for people that actually work, and have real world engagement with our National Parks. John, you obviously will never get or understand that.
Who said I was talking about you, Gary? It could have been anyone at the Great Smoky Mtns Association, a business organizationally tied to the National Park Service to sell products.
Alfred just gave the perfect example of how comments get blown up. He assigns reading, but when I gave him the reference for the millions of birds killed by cats and how nothing compares to their estimated destuctive ability on record, he says it was a hit piece. Here Alfred, this is not a made up paper, and the authors are legitimate scientists with a peer-reviewed study: Loss, S.R., T. Will, and P.P. Marra. 2013. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nature Communications 4:1396.Loss, S.R., T. Will, and P.P. Marra. 2012. Direct human-caused mortality of birds: improving quantification of magnitude and assessment of population impact. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10(7):357–364.Loss, S.R., T. Will, and P.P. Marra. 2013. Estimates of bird collision mortality at wind facilities in the contiguous United States. Biological Conservation 168:201–209.Loss, S.R., T. Will, and P.P. Marra. 2014. Refining estimates of bird collision and electrocution mortality at power lines in the United States. PloS ONE 9(7):e101565. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0101565.
Argalite, there is a big difference between a starling, pigeon, sparrow, and an eagle. And don't forget the bats. Any sane environmentalist concedes that free-roaming cats kill millions of birds (although mine have never killed any). George and Gracie, our family duo, prefer hunting down mice and rats. George proudly reports seven rats this year culled from our neighbor's garden. He is so proud of himself he left one in our bedroom. Ugh! That morning I almost stepped on it.
Yes, the wind energy industry would like us to believe that the problem is really cats. No, the problem is their 40-story Cuisinarts chewing up endangered raptors in major flyways. How many are lost? Scientists really don't know, since coyotes and other predators immediately get to the carcasses. It could be ten times current estimates, and this in fact we know. The wind energy industry has asked for a legal "take" of eagles exceeding 4,000 animals a year.
Last year, a bald eagle landed in one of our fir trees. George and Gracie happened to be outside. They were scared out of their wits. No, they won't run from a pigeon or sparrow, but that day they ran like hell.
Unfortunately, the eagles, hawks, condors, bats, owls, etc., can't run from a threat they don't know. In time, perhaps, natural selection will kick in, and the raptors will "learn" about turbines. And solar power plants with 1,000 degree "heat." In the meantime, we are carving up the countryside--and our endangered wildlife--with a grand experiment that will never work, unless the human race seriously reduces its population, but who wants to start doing that?
In science, as in history, there are many people who refuse reducing a problem to its lowest common denominator. For them, it is always two-fourths and not one half. The two-fourths folks want us to believe that the problem is always something else. No, the problem is, having overrun the planet, that we human beings are the ones out of control.
Please, don't blame George and Gracie for being cats. They don't drive cars that kill thousands of their species every day, either. But we humans sure don't care what we kill and never stop to lament. I am perfectly within my rights to declare the human race a biological disaster. I've thought about it, after all. From where I sit, if the world were run by cats (and ours do think they run it), it would be a better place.
So you didn't address the fact that these are legitimate studies and not wind-power advocates. Who cares about your stupid cats?
Argalite, why do you need the adjective--"legitimate?" I never said those studies were illegitimate, did I? I merely pointed out what they failed to consider--that when comparing bird kills by wind turbines and cats, we need to consider the context of the "kills."
As for my "stupid" cats, you tip your hand with that adjective that you only care about yourself. Anyone who has lived with animals knows that animals both love and think. The other day, I especially enjoyed reading the commentary about those wilderness dogs that their masters now sorely miss. I believe one of them was Gary Wilson, and it was an especially poignant post.
So, while you're off reading those "scientific" papers (and yes, I have read them, too), how about reading a volume or two on environmental ethics? And get yourself a pet. Dog or cat, it will love you without qualification. Just don't forget when it is time for lunch.
Hey, how can anybody accuse Alfred's cats of being stupid? They were smart enough to train him to feed them and clean their litter boxes, weren't they?
C'mon, folks, we need some smiles in the world this morning . . .
You got that right, Lee! I just cleaned their litter box, including all fresh litter, and just now Gracie scattered it all over the floor. She always wants to "break" the new litter in. She had Christine and me broken in by the time she was eight weeks old, and still bosses around her brother George. Meanwhile, they have a cushy towel on my desk where they keep me company. Today, I read them Argalite's comment, and they hardly raised an eyebrow. After all, when you're the king and queen of Seattle, who cares what the people think. However, George did seem to say, with one long meow, that everyone, yes, needs a sense of humor!
Fun comment Alfred Runte, and yes I thought Gary's comment on his wilderness hiking companion, his dog, was special. You are right about these huge solar farms, many people working against them here in the states environmental community as well as other citizen groups. I also think Argalite's position on cats has merit. Feral cats are becoming a big problem here in California, not only in urban parks like Golden Gate, but in communities throughout the San Joaquin Valley. Even Yosemite Valley has had a feral cat problem in the past. I rescued two abandoned black kittens left beside the highway a couple of months ago. Brought them home, and as soon as they felt safe and had some food, they were really a kick. As I have many species of birds on the property, I turned them over to an animal shelter. In any case, have much fun with George and his sister. Like you, I am also a pet lover.
I grew up with dogs all my life and have one now. How presumpuous of you to think I care only for myself Alfred. I have a turtle (nonnative) I hatched from an egg, and I do not think cats belong outside in cities and suburban areas because they are environmental disaters, indescriminate killing machines that decimate birds, lizards and mice, taking the food from native animals mouths! Talk about environmental ethics! As far as I am concerned cats do not belong in North America, but nothing will remove them now. I guess some favor certain types of birds over others. They all have their value and while raptor numbers may be up since DDT almost wiped them out, both songbirds or raptors are not doing well
I have maybe commented once or twice on this forum . . ..I had started to add to that small quanitity on the first day of this discussion because, as a number of respected members have commented, we learn from one another. Even those that irritate me greatly cause me to think. I thought everything had been said with the leanings toward "live and let live" holding sway in what I hope Kurt will decide. Until that last few bits of hyperbole. I still want to see comments, but I no longer feel that my words are without addiitional merit,. Regardless of the irritants, we need to hear where others are/are coming from. . . The Parks are an opportunity to see beyond ourselves -- listening to one another -- or backing away rather than attacking ad hominem -- is part of that. I like having the comments! (and as an aside, that might also convict others, Kurt, I am behind on membership support, but will fix that!).
Yes, Argalite, it's too bad that when cats came to North America, there was no one around to build a wall. However, the same could be said for many dogs, could it not? Every few months, a pit bull in Seattle takes down some child or adult. And indeed, show me the postal carrier that has ever been bitten by a cat. As for your nonnative turtle, please, just keep it out of Everglades National Park.
Cats are predators, no doubt about it. But that does not make them "indiscriminate killing machines," as you put it. Beginning under Stephen T. Mather, the first director of the National Park Service, the same prejudice was used to eliminate all predators from the national parks, up to and including wolves. Speaking of predators, do you call yourself an "indiscriminate killing machine" every time you eat steak, pork, or chicken? No, because someone else has done your killing for you, and carefully packaged your prey in Saran Wrap.
Logic, Argalite, logic. Every prejudice falls apart on logic. How is it logical to argue that any predator should be killed simply for being a predator? Speaking of which, many dogs are predators, too, and just as "nonnative" as the cats you allege should be wiped off the face of North America for "taking the food from native animals mouths."
You end by saying that "both songbirds or raptors are not doing well," noting the role of DDT. Was DDT invented by cats? No, but wind turbines were sure invented by humans, and need to be carefully placed well off our major wildlife refuges, national parks, and flyways.
Is that happening? No. When it does you can start blaming cats for the problem. Meanwhile, we are the problem. Certainly, most corporate executives that should be listening to biologists would rather pay for an EIS that ignores biology. After all, biology gets in everyone's way.
Eliminate comments here and you will eliminate the opportunity for readers to try to share information regarding current events in conservation, such as this article from the Salt Lake Tribune:
http://local.sltrib.com/online/sw/newmexico/
I stick by my assessment, cats are indescriminate killing machines and they spread their disease; toxoplasmosis to wildlife and humans. Here is something the Travelers readers should know:
at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, they just completed the largest cat-proof fence in the U.S., 5 miles long to keep the Hawaiian petrels safe from thier primary threat, feral cats.
Pages