National Parks Traveler

I do not agree that claiming religious rights has anything to do with increasing shareholder valueTo not be forced into paying for benefits - of any kind - could improve profitability which would increase shareholder value.  But then, I am not aware of any public corporation that has tried to excercise a religious rights argument. 

They should not be allowed to be treated as a person; i.e. candidate election spending; refusing to comply with federal mandate for religious reasons (birth control). I'll accept EC's point, but you can't play both sides of the fence.

I think EC's comments about corporations are interesting.  I don't agree nor disagree with his statement about their purpose being very simple - generate money for shareholders.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I do have a few thoughts about it though.

 Again,if the parks are up for sale (and they obviously are)  then they should have at least gone to the highest bidder but this appears to be a backroom deal which is almost as disturbing as those who think AB is somehow promoting rape (it takes a troubled mind to make that connection).  If anything, be troubled by the possibility that they might team up with Jay Z for concerts in the parks (c

Thinking of the posts above from Michael Kellett and Alfred, when I first started working in the Park on the trail crews, we worked 6 days a week.

Alfred,AB is not (and should not be) giving money to the Parks to be philonthropic, they are giving it for publicity. 

I don't think "price" is the point being made here at all. Sometimes, a writer has to resort to irony or sarcasm before anyone can see the point. And the point is: The government, having presented the national parks as a gold mine, turns around and sells them as if they were tin.

I agree with you Kurt, the price seems low.  But I find it funny after all the indignation about the arrangement in the first place, now we are talking price.   Reminds me of a joke that ends with the women asking "what do you think I am" and the man responds, "we have already established that, now we are just negotiating the price". 

Some really good comments here, some of them even worthy of an article or two. First, about Yosemite. Once the federal government had completed the surveys of the high country, the handwriting was on the wall. Settlement claims under the Homestead Act, etc., then proliferated, culminating in the late 1880s. The park of 1890 was already hamstrung by 65,000 acres of private inholdings--or more.

has reached 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in recorded history

EC,1. Regarding your denial of climate change, It is ironic that you made it the day after this announcement.

Thank you Michael Kellett and thanks for E.O. Lewis quote. 

To quote E.O. Wilson, the eminent biologist and membert of the National Parks Second Century Commission:

I have been in communication concerning Harry Butowsky's recent op-ed article in National Parks Traveler with a few NPS'ers who are still in the field.  In general, most agree with Harry's point of view.

The park service  now has an "Office of Relevancy, Diversity and Inclusion." It is busy issuing memos, training and goals for, well, relevancy. I'm not sure what relevancy is. Probably something like relevance but squishier.  As in "No, it's not actually relevant, but it has the aroma of relevancy."

OK  JEMiculka lets cut the sarcasm. We need some positive suggestions here. Do you have one? If so I would like to hear it.

Perhaps we should see about creating a National Parks Lend - Lease Act.  We can loan Yellowstone, Yosemite, Glacier and Grand Canyon to their respective states or counties or other interested organizations and let them manage them.

During my career in the Maintenance Division, I would say about a third of the work we did was not maintenance, but new construction and elaborate upgrades.  This development work was always a higher priority and the most certain path to managerial promotion.

I agree with you trail advocate. The reality of our maintenance backlog, lack of staffing, poor quality or outdated administrative histories is there and if we continue on our present course I see disaster looming. There is no perfect or ideal solution but we do need a plan. I do not see a plan by the NPS to deal with our looming problems.

But yes, interpreation had already fallen from a staff of 75 to a staff of 36. I believe now it is just 18. How do you make the parks more relevant by cutting job holders off at the knees? In Zion, another wonderful couple just left the park, knowing they would never achieve permanent status.