Wild Wilderness believes that America's public recreation lands are a national treasure that must be financially supported by the American people and held in public ownership as a legacy for future generations
Written by Guest Tom Ribe, President of Caldera Action
Wednesday, 08 April 2009
With November’s election results, New Mexico moved into a new era of possibilities for achieving our common environmental goals. While the list of needed actions is long, the need to transform management of the Valles Caldera National Preserve in the Jemez Mountains is a high priority. As I write, the VCNP is taking a truly perilous course and it will take a strong coalition of organizations to protect this “Yellowstone of New Mexico” from commercialization and development. We hope you will actively join us.
Caldera Action is a 501(c)(3) organization founded in 2007 to advocate for the protection of the VCNP’s natural environment and to promote appropriate public access. We have a hard-working board that has studied the VCNP situation closely and we’ve drafted federal legislation to reform the VCNP. Naturally to succeed we need a full coalition of conservation, science and education groups to prevail upon a receptive Congress.
In 2000 when the federal government purchased the VCNP a compromise was struck between those who didn't want more public land in New Mexico and those who wanted the VCNP protected as federal land with high environmental standards. Rather than setting up the Preserve under an agency, a "Trust" was created to manage the Preserve. This Trust basically is a "government corporation "overseen by a board of mostly private-sector Trustees. These Trustees supervise a staff and together they struggle under a mandate to become "financially self-sufficient" by 2015. No other piece of wildland has this management structure and, frankly, it's not working.
The Trust is an “experiment” where the private sector was supposed to manage public lands better than federal agencies could. Despite a strong mandate from Congress to protect the environment at the VCNP, more and more the Preserve is being run like a business with little regard for the public interest. The new executive director has stated that his job is to commercialize the Preserve to achieve financial self sufficiency. Soon, there may be proposals for lodges, golf, full-hookup campgrounds, and new paved roads plus high public fees. Expect all this to be rushed with an aggressive PR campaign and minimal compliance with federal law.
Rather than entirely focusing on the actions of the VCNP Trustees, Caldera Action is taking a big picture view. We feel strongly that the whole Trust model is a failure and worse, it encourages privatization and the sort of commercial development on the VCNP that inspired the public to demand federal purchase back in 2000!
In response, Caldera Action has submitted a draft bill to our congressional delegation seeking to have the VCNP transferred to the National Park Service as a Preserve. The restoration of the damaged ecology would continue, protection of headwaters of the Jemez River would be an emphasis, and the VCNP would become an accessible place of rare quality where people could have exceptional outdoor experiences in a well-protected environment.
Our legislation would:
• Replace the experimental public-private Trust with professional management under the National Park Service. It will remove the unrealistic and unattainable financial self-sufficiency provision of the original Act.
• Guarantee the long-term protection of the Preserve’s natural and cultural heritage so that we can all experience the sense of wonder that comes from individual discovery of this unique and significant landscape.
• Mandate a Comprehensive Management Plan for the Preserve that will integrate resource protection, expanded public recreation, watershed restoration, scientific research and youth education, while maintaining the scientific adaptive management approach currently in place.
• Maintain and improve hunting and fishing opportunities offered on the property.
• Allow for limited domestic livestock grazing if consistent with the primary purposes of protecting natural and cultural resources, and educational, recreational, and scenic values. It will remove the mandate to operate the Preserve as a working ranch.
• Foster sustainable economic development in surrounding communities through increased visitation and provision of visitor facilities and services.
• Achieve management efficiency and cost savings by sharing administrative, law enforcement, and resource management staffs with neighboring Bandelier National Monument and incorporate the upper watersheds of Alamo, Capulin and Sanchez Canyons into the Preserve.
We feel strongly that the National Park Service is the best management agency for the VCNP given the Preserve’s national importance and the increasing demand for public access. The NPS manages 18 national preserves and a variety of other non-national park properties nation wide.
Caldera Action will call you soon to meet with you to get your ideas, discuss our proposal, and your involvement with it. We hope you will help your membership get involved as we did for the Valle Vidal so we can rescue the VCNP early in the Obama administration.
I was recently asked to review an unpublished article which delved into the
importance of fostering, preserving and garnering increased support for the
Wilderness Ethic enshrined within the 1964 Wilderness Act. I look forward to
reading that excellent article in print.
In the meanwhile, I'd like to draw attention to a very different and
disturbing article published in 2000 which enumerates the dramatic shift now
taking place with respect to the Wilderness Ethic. Rather than fostering,
preserving and garnering support for the ORIGINAL Wilderness Ethic, these
authors describe a radically altered Ethic -- one that bears no relationship to
the Wilderness Act or to the purposes for which the enduring resource of
Wilderness was originally established. The piece, which I view as presenting an extremely
probable future, is titled "Wilderness in the 21st Century". It could just as
appropriately been titled, "The End of Wilderness."
Selected text appears below with a link to the original and complete
version.
This morning the Associated Press ran an article which has enjoyed widespread distribution. It is about the ongoing efforts of Senator Mark Udall to help the Ski Industry gain increased control over publicly owned mountains. It is about weakening the law which, since 1986, has given some measure of protection to these lands and about giving the go-ahead to forever transform Ski Areas into Four Season Mountain Resorts if not into privatized, commercialized and urbanized playgrounds. The headline given to this story by the Oregonian reads - "Environmentalists, ski industry clash over summer recreation". That's not the half of it!
Unfortunately, today's AP article was very weak. Fortunately, an excellent article was written when, then Congressman, Udall introduced this same legislation last year. That article appears below.
Pasted below is an item from the USFS' "FS Today" website. It begins with the words "A consortium of federal agencies and nonprofit organizations and the recreation industry..." and provides a link where you can "learn more."
Follow that link and you'll be taken directly to the American Recreation Coalition's website. Follow the link at the bottom of that page and you'll eventually find a list of event coordinators, sponsors and partners. Here is the direct link.
The list is headed by the two event coordinators (the ARC and the USFS), followed by 92 supporters. I encourage you to check that list.
Knowing the ARC represents the narrow interests of commercialized, privatized and motorized recreation and having been informed that the ARC is the Get Outdoors Day co-coordinator, I'd like to ask -- is this event something the environmental community should actively support, publicly lambaste or simply ignore?
While I'm at it, perhaps I should ask -- "in the relationship between the ARC and the USFS, who is the senior partner?"
The Deschutes (DNF) and Ochoco National Forests of Central Oregon are co-managed and share a common budget. Numerous recreation sites on the DNF, including trailheads, boat ramps, campgrounds, picnic areas and more require the payment of a fee as authorized by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA). These sites accept both the Northwest Forest and the national America the Beautiful Passes. No sites within the Ochoco NF accept either of these passes.
Walton Lake is a recreation site located on the Ochoco NF used by local fishermen, day-trippers and campers. Though publicly owned, access to this lake restricted to paying customers only. Walton Lake is managed by a company that describes itself in these words:
" Thousand Trails is the largest private system of RV camping and outdoor preserves in America."
Whereas FLREA prohibits the US Forest Service from charging entry fees, no such restriction is placed upon charging for facilities that have been effectively privatized. Thousand Trails charges an "entry fee" at Walton Lake.
It was recently reported that the Deschutes NF is considering spending $612,000 to upgrade the facilities at Walton Lake and is currently accepting public comment.
The annual budget for operation, maintenance and capital improvement for all of the developed recreation sites on the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests is $149,828. Stated in a slightly different way, the cost of improvements proposed for Walton Lake, is more than four times the annual developed recreation budget for entire forest management unit.
One might reasonably ask "why would the Forest Service spend so much money improving a privatized facility -- a facility from which they receive almost no revenue?"
Written by Guest Kitty Benzar - Western Slope No Fee Coalition
Monday, 16 February 2009
All of the Forest Service and BLM Recreation Resource Advisory
Committee members have been selected and each committee has met at least once.
With very few exceptions, the members of these committees - hand selected by the
Forest Service and BLM - have become willing collaborators with the agencies in
turning our public lands into profit centers.
Known as RecRACS, they are mandated by the fee law to act as
representatives of the public, recommending for or against new fee areas and fee
increases. They are required by law to see documentation of general public
support before recommending fee proposals.
But instead of acting as the
public's firewall against ill-conceived, illegal, and poorly supported fee
proposals, time after time they have recommended approval even when there is
evidence of general public opposition, when the agencies have done no public
outreach at all, and/or in the face of evidence that many fee proposals do not
meet the requirements in the law.
Is snow-kiting within Designated Wilderness a legally permissible activity? That question was raised recently in a front page article within my local newspaper and the local Forest Service chose to punt rather than answer the question.
I am confident that snow-kiting it is absolutely prohibited by the Wilderness Act and the laws, rules and regulations promulgated to carry out the original intent of that Act. I am only somewhat less confident that land managers at both the local and national level will sooner, rather than later, declare snow-kiting to be a prohibited activity within Wilderness.
In 1962, the author of the Wilderness Act wrote:
“The purpose of the Wilderness Act is to preserve the wilderness character of the areas to be included in the wilderness system, not to establish any particular use.”
Today, America's leading advocates for proper Wilderness management, Wilderness Watch, writes:
The overarching legal mandate of the Wilderness Act is to preserve the Wilderness character of each area in the NWPS. Preserving Wilderness character is the essential key to keeping alive the very meaning of wilderness in America.
For those unfamiliar with the new and growing sport of snow kiting, I've pulled together five short videos. When viewed in the order presented, they show a progression from the basic to the extreme.
Here they are. Watch them and decide whether this activity is compatible with YOUR concept of "wilderness character."
Scott
Snowkiting. Club Overpower
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTvEXqAhSRw
Video shows the basics of snow kiting on flatland
Best Snowkiten 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gz71QRYwBs
Video shows a variety of kiting experiences
Flexifoil Snowkiting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1ZGEolr_nU
Video shows mountain kiting similar to that now taking place within the Three Sisters Wilderness, here in Central Oregon
Snow Kite Masters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbQnWZ8dKPA
Video shows kiting as paragliding
Extreme Kiting Skiing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbpR6cZNEEo
Video shows examples of extreme big mountain kiting
I've drawn the connection between higher gate fees and lower attendance so many times that I won't do so when introducing the appended article. It makes the point well enough. I would, however, ask you to ponder the following.
Imagine the political pressure National Park concessioners could exert to reduce park entrance fees if they concluded that today's sky-high entrance fees have been cutting into sales of rubber tomahawks, slurpies and popcorn. They could exert as much pressure as they did when they lobbied Congress in support of giving the NPS authority to increase fees without limit.
Back then, concessionaires saw a opportunity to focus not upon the general admission crowd, but upon selling value-added experiences to those who could afford skybox prices. Back then, the generally accepted problem was that "we were loving our parks to death." Reducing visitation was a priority and many interest groups cried out for higher fees as a way to solve the visitation problem. Back then, the economy was booming and now it has gone bust. So what's next?
Will the Park Service and their tourism partners focus upon the skybox crowd or will they lower the price of admission in an effort to pack in the crowds more tightly and then sell them all the Bovrils and Pies they can consume? Or will they, after decades of mismanaging the National Park System, step back and try to determine where and how they went wrong? Will they use this opportunity to begin to put things right --- or is that asking too much?
On Monday and Tuesday, and from Thursday through Sunday, a walk in the Prescott National Forest costs five bucks. Same with a picnic by a lake or creek. Same with sitting and contemplating the universe. Six days a week, access to the forest is sold as a commodity. Wednesdays, however, are fee-free.
WHY? Why would any National Forest give one entire day each week for enjoying the Great Outdoors free of charge? Most National Forests provided only two, three or maybe four free days in an entire year. The Prescott provides one free day in seven. WHY?
My presumption is that the Prescott National Forest managers are either feeling generous or perhaps understand that there is a genuine equity issue with the fees. Perhaps they feel guilty knowing that the fees are exclusionary and discriminatory and that fees are keeping lower income persons from using the forests.
Or perhaps Prescott forest managers understand that the recreation fees they've been charging since the passage of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act in 2005 (as a result of being tacked onto the Omnibus Appropriations Bill by the felonious Senator Ted Stevens) are not merely unpopular, the fees themselves are responsible for reduced visitation.
Perhaps they've figured out that the fees are alienating the tax-paying public. The fees may not simply be responsible for reduced visitation, they could be reducing long-term support for adequately funding the forest recreation programs with tax dollars. Without such support, especially at with the economic crisis upon us, appropriated funding will likely be cut. If that happens, we can expect the closure of non-profitable facilities and/or the privatization of those facilities that can be operated profitably.
Or, perhaps the Prescott NF is merely trying to lure additional visitors on Wednesdays so that they can report to Congress that annual visitation is not plunging --- as it is on forests from coast to coast.
I don't know why the Prescott offers free public access to the National Forest one day each week. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
The Washington Time may not be my favorite media source, but I give them credit for doing a grand job of exposing the Forest Service's latest abuse of the law.
I also give credit to Kitty Benzar of Western Slope No-Fee Coalition for ferreting out and unraveling this interesting, and embarrassing, tale.
Read on to see what happens when forest managers imagine that the Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act gave them the authority to turn tree cutting into a recreational activity. These FS managers have the most extraordinary imaginations --- and so very little regard for either the law and for the public ... or so it appears.
Several people have asked my reaction to the nomination of Senator Ken Salazar for the position of Interior Secretary. I am, in a word, 'disappointed'. Like much of the conservation community, Wild Wilderness favored the nomination of Representative Raul Grijalva. Unlike much of this community, we took a strongly negative stance against candidate John Berry and are now much relieved that Mr. Berry did not get the nod.
However, for taking such action, Wild Wilderness is coming under attack from Berry's supporters. We have been accused of incorrectly representing Mr. Berry's connections with the wise-use, anti-environmental American Recreation Coalition.
Luckily, the ARC's President, Derrick Crandall, has just issued his own post-Salazar update. In it he shared with his supporters, his reaction to this appointment and has provided behind the scenes background. More importantly, he has tipped us off as to who may soon be appointed Deputy Secretary.
Pasted below are the first paragraphs of Crandall's update and a link where the entire update can be read. To view the Crandall's previous six updates, click here.
According to recent news articles, the USFS and NPS are scratching their heads while publicly saying: we haven't a clue why visitation is down so much. They are likewise, and at every opportunity, claiming that today's youths are no longer playing in nature, because they are addicted to videos -- and similar statements.
Frankly I think the agency people are being remarkably disingenuous.
Pasted below is a short article about a town council in Canada that seems to understand why their local kids aren't playing outdoors. Is this relevant to our National Parks and Forests? You bet it is!
The response to Wild Wilderness' recent alert by folks such as yourself,
was epic. I give a sincere "thank you" to everyone who contacted the Obama
Transition Team. Not only were your concerns about John Berry's heard, so were
your thoughts regarding rec-fees and your warnings about the black-hat American
Recreation Coalition. A week ago, those topics were not on the President
Elect's radar screen and today they are. That's a major accomplishment --- one
that will pay dividends for years to come.
With regard to the nomination
of Ken Salazar to lead the Interior Department, that appears to have been a
middle of the road choice. There were candidates whose values aligned more
closely with those of Wild Wilderness. There were candidates whose appointment
would have been far more frustrating. For the first time since the Recreation
Fee Demonstration Program was introduced in 1996, the incoming Interior
Secretary is someone on record as opposing recreation fees. Senator Ken Salazar
was a co-sponsor of the Fee Repeal and Expanded Access Act of 2007, S2438 -- a
bill that did not pass in 2008 and which will almost certainly be reintroduced
in the next session.
With Salazar's confirmation, I hope and trust that the Department of
Interior will cease issuing politically-motivated,
ideologically-grounded reports claiming the public simply adores the rec-fee
program and that it has been such as unqualified success.
Likewise, I hope and trust that the incoming head of Interior will
cooperate with the President and Congress to repeal the fee program and to
actively reverse course and distance the land management agencies from the
numerous pro-privatization, pro-commercialization and pro-motorization
recreation policies implemented by the Bush Administration at the behest of the
ARC. It truly is time for a change!
Once again, I thank everyone for their support and look forward to the
possibility of making positive headway in the years to come.
Appended is a brief message received from a trusted associate. It deals with the appointment of John Berry to the position of Interior Secretary. It further confirms what other sources have been suggesting, that being:
John Berry appears to be incoming President's top pick for the Interior Secretary position
and
The Obama Transition Team could give Berry the nod as soon as Monday...
John Berry was recently appointed to the ARC's Outdoor Resources Review Group. Having Berry appointed Interior Secretary would be a phenomenal coup for the ARC.
John Berry was the Department of Interior's Recreation Fee Demonstration point-person. In that capacity Berry worked closely with the ARC's President, Derrick Crandall. Crandall was a chief proponent of this immensely unpopular and contentions program. Click to read Congressional testimony by both Berry and Crandall.
John Berry is the ONLY candidate now in the running who would be receptive to the pressures exerted by the American Recreation Coalition -- and those pressures promote the privatization, commercialization and motorization of recreational opportunities in the National Parks and other public lands.
ARC, I might add, was a highly visible and staunch supporter of the nominations of Interior Secretaries James Watt, Donald Hodel and Gale Norton. No one who loves the great outdoors should accept as Interior Secretary any nominee favored by the ARC.
Barack Obama was elected because he promised to bring change. John Berry's appointment would ensure continuity of the ARC's dominance over recreation policies. Is this the "change" Mr. Obama promised us? I hope not!!!
Pasted immediately below is the most current information I have in my possession. Below that you is contact information for the Obama Transition team, should you wish to weight in. Time is of the essence so please do not delay.
When it comes to outdoor recreation policy, the American Recreation Coalition is almost
certainly the most influential lobbyist in America. When the ARC put's its
"Top Ten Challenges to Recreation" onto paper, I take
careful note. I hope you will too.
As you browse ARC's list (below), several of their points will
likely be glaringly offensive. Some may seem benign and a few may
even strike you as positive.
Those who are influenced by the ARC, (i.e., lands managers, politicians,
the media, certain recreation groups and a handful of conservation groups)
will treat this list as if it had the authority of the Ten
Commandments.
I hope you will treat it for what it is. It is a listing
of the "issues that are threatening the recreation industry's
growth" -- it is that, and nothing more.
It should not become the basis for national outdoor recreation policy,
though it almost certainly will.
Scott
Things are seldom as they seem;
skim milk masquerades as
cream.
-W.S.
Gilbert
This year's Congressional Summer
Recess is a good time to pause and take stock of where things stand in the
movement to free our public lands from access fees. Here's an update of recent
developments and ongoing efforts.
S.2438 The Fee Repeal and
Expanded Access Act
The Fee Repeal Act was introduced into the U.S. Senate in
December, 2007, 4 months to the day following the unexpected death of Robert
Funkhouser, our co-founder and first President. Without Robert's ceaseless
efforts the bill would never have happened, and it is heartbreaking that he was
not there to celebrate.
The celebration was brief, however, because now comes the hard
work of getting the bill passed. It has four powerful sponsors: Max
Baucus (MT), Mike Crapo (ID), Jon Tester (MT), and Ken Salazar (CO), but it has to get through the committee process before it can move to the floor
for a vote.
It has been assigned to the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, and is expected to be heard in the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. We are pushing for a
hearing in September, because after that it's hard to be noticed above all the
election-year noise. The bill must get a majority vote in the full Committee to
move forward.
You can read more about the bill and its effects, and link to a
non-partisan national legislative watch website where you can cast your vote in
favor of the bill HERE.
What You Can Do: Contact the leadership of the Committee and Subcommittee, and
urge them to schedule S.2438 for a hearing as soon as possible: Committee Chair: Jeff Bingaman (NM) 202-224-5521, Committee Ranking Member: Pete Domenici (NM) 202-224-6621, Subcommittee Chair: Ron Wyden (OR) 202-224-5244, Subcommittee Ranking Member: John Barrasso (WY) 202-224-6441.
Contact your own Senators and ask them to co-sponsor S.2438. If
your Senator is on the Committee, your call carries extra weight. View a list of
Committee Members HERE.
On June 18, the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests,
and Public Lands held an important hearing on the implementation of the current
fee law, the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, or RAT for short.
(Recreation Access Tax).
Chairman Raul Grijalva (AZ) opened the hearing
with a moving opening statement about Congress's commitment to free public
access to public lands, and his statement was backed with a slide show of fee
areas across the country.
Witnesses for the Forest Service (Undersecretary of
Agriculture Mark Rey) and Department of Interior (Deputy
Secretary of Interior Lynn Scarlett) then testified, claiming that the
fees are popular and are working great.
They received an intense grilling from the Subcommittee members,
and their responses were evasive at best and downright misleading at worst. It
was pretty clear that they are completely out of touch with the intense anger
and opposition that most Americans feel when they are charged money for access
to lands that they already own and pay to maintain with their hard-earned taxes.
The second panel of witnesses kicked off with Idaho
State Representative George Eskridge, who sponsored Idaho's unanimous
state resolution calling for repeal of the RAT. He was followed
by Western Slope No-Fee Coalition President Kitty Benzar, National Recreation and Park Association's Richard Dolesh, Bill Wade, who heads the Coalition of National Park
Service Retirees, and Peter Wiechers, a teacher and
kayaker from California.
A completely different picture emerged from this panel, one that
shows people being priced out of their own public lands, local economies trying
to cope with declining visitation, working families (and their kids) staying
home because they can't afford to visit the great outdoors, and agencies unable
or unwilling to account for millions of dollars in fee revenue, much of it being
charged under legally questionable circumstances.
The anti-fee witnesses carried the day, and there are strong
indications that a Repeal Bill will be introduced in the House as a companion to
S.2438 in the Senate. We will let you know the moment that happens.
You can view archived video of the hearing and read Rep.
Grijalva's opening statement and the written statements of the witnesses HERE.
What You Can Do: Contact the Subcommittee Leadership and thank them for holding
the hearing. Urge them to introduce legislation to repeal the Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act. Subcommittee Chair: Raul Grijalva
(AZ) 202-225-2435, Subcommittee Ranking Member: Rob Bishop (UT)
202-225-0453.
Contact your U.S. Representative and ask him
or her to introduce legislation to repeal the Federal Lands Recreation
Enhancement Act. If your Representative sits on the House Natural Resources
Committee, your call carries extra weight. View a list of Committee Members HERE.
Beginning in 2007, the Forest Service and BLM Recreation
Resource Advisory Committees have been coming on line and beginning their work.
Known as RecRACS, they are mandated by the fee law and are
supposed to act as representatives of the public, recommending for or against
new fee areas and fee increases.
Each RecRAC consists of a spectrum of users, including
recreationists, local and tribal governments, guides and outfitters, and
environmental groups. In some areas new committees were established, in others
existing BLM advisory groups are being used. A few states (AK, NE, WY) have
opted out of the RecRAC process, at the request of their Governors. You can
see an interactive map at the Forest Service's RecRAC
website.
The RecRAC members are selected and appointed by the agencies
themselves, and the members all represent groups that are beholden to the Forest
Service and BLM for their particular activity or area of interest. They are
selected because they are likely to do the agencies' bidding.
The results are about what you would expect: a virtual
assembly-line of fee approvals.
To date, the RecRACs have approved at least 494 Fee Increases
and 218 New Fee Sites (see our Box
Score of Fee Proposals).
They have questioned only 35 fee proposals, of which 19 were
denied or tabled, and 16 withdrawn by the agencies - to be reworked and brought
back another day.
That's 747 fee proposals in just over one year, of which 712, or 95%, have been approved. If you think that's because they were
reasonable proposals, supported by the general public and in conformity with the
law, well think again.
The general public didn't even know about most of these new and
increased fees until they were a done deal, even though public support is
required by law.
Here are just a few of the problems.
Meetings have ALL been held on weekdays, during the day.
Meetings have been held by teleconference, and email meetings
are authorized.
Many of the meetings have never been publicly announced at all.
Meeting dates and times have been changed at the last
minute.
Agendas have not been made available in advance.
Agenda items have been added at the last minute without public
notice.
RecRACs have been asked - and have agreed - to "pre-approve" fee
increases up to a certain percentage.
Comments sent in about fee proposals by the public have been
withheld from, or misrepresented to, the RecRAC members by agency
spokespersons.
Minutes of meetings have not been posted for months, or not
posted at all.
The late Bernard DeVoto asked this question in a powerful essay published in 1953. I don’t believe that he really meant to lock the gate and throw the keys away, but rather to awaken the public to the critical, serious issues the parks faced at that time in history.
I feel the same question should be asked today. If anything, the issues are more critical now than in DeVoto’s day, half a century ago.
Consider that in 1992 the University of Arizona Press published my book, Regreening the National Parks, and now I am working on a new updated edition. Virtually all my research and continued study show that our treasured national parks have suffered from political interference and profiteering power, and are being reduced to commercialized popcorn playgrounds.
I hope that I can help to reverse this course and restore the esteem our national parks deserve. Toward that end I invite and welcome your input on how you see the parks, with their pluses and minuses, and your suggestions on how to best protect and manage them in the public interest. But first, this evidence:
Olympic National Park, Washington. After seven years in the making, the park has released its final General Management Plan (GMP), covering 900 pages in two volumes, and meant to guide park management for the next 20 years. A critique in the newsletter of Olympic Park Associates, the citizen group of the region, notes: “It takes some positive steps toward ecosystem protection. But despite the urging of conservationists, it tends to be overly focused on motorized use and presents a timid approach to preserving the wilderness integrity of this world-class park.”
Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has before it a brief filed by a citizen coalition challenging the park’s Colorado River Management Plan as heavily weighted in favor of motorized tour boats and helicopter exchanges. The lawsuit contends those uses in the river corridor fail to preserve wilderness values, and fail to protect the Grand Canyon’s natural soundscape in violation of the NPS 1916 Organic Act. It challenges commercialization of the river in favor of concession craft while severely limiting self-guided river runners.
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, North Carolina-Tennessee. Conservation organizations early in July conducted a press conference in Knoxville to protest the Bush administration proposed change in EPA regulations that would result in worsening air pollution. The rule change would alter power-plant emission-reporting requirements in a way that would lead to serious underestimates of pollution increases in the park. It would make it easier for new coal-fired power plants to gain approval, and six such plants have been proposed within a 200-mile radius of the park. Great Smokies already is the most heavily polluted national park.
Yellowstone National Park, Montana-Idaho-Wyoming. “From mid-December to mid-March Yellowstone bans automobiles from most of the park, but it welcomes snowmobiles on 189 miles of snow-covered roads. One of these machines can emit as many hydrocarbons as 250 cars – and there are about 80,000 snowmobiles in the park each season. Park employees complain of headaches, nausea and throat irritation from the pollution, and fresh air has to be pumped into park entrance booths. The Bluewater Network, leader of the national campaign to keep snowmobiles out of the park, calculates that in addition to fouling the air, two-stroke snowmobile engines dump 180,000 to 210,000 gallons of unburned gasoline and motor oil on Yellowstone’s ecosystem each season.” – Ted Williams, Forest Magazine, Summer 2008.
In April 2007, I titled a post "Laverty the Disaster" and concluded it with this warning:
I believe the President's selection of Lyle Laverty for the #3 position within the Department of Interior represents just about the worst possible choice. "Disaster" does not begin to describe what we can expect if he is confirmed.
Pasted below is an article from today's Rocky Mountain News about a newly completed audit of Colorado Parks as it had operated under Laverty's leadership.
Here's the bottom line of that audit.
"There is a pervasive, long-standing culture of abuse, waste and loss," said Jennifer Harmon, a legislative auditor. "It needs a complete turnaround."
Today the Department of Interior needs a complete turnaround and a fresh start. The same thing can be said about the Legislature, the Judiciary the Executive Office, the National Park Service, the US Forest Service and a lot more. The appended article suggests: ".... it's like the inmates are in control." I'd suggest that many of those now in control should rightly be inmates.
Sustainability (and wilderness, for that matter) are dead ideas. Say goodbye to them. All ecosystems, in 100 years, are moving ~100 - 150 miles north or an equivalent up ...
To which I'd like to respond.
I agree that the ecology of designated Wilderness areas is subject to change (perhaps radical change), but strongly disagree with the claim that wilderness is "a dead idea."
With regard to "sustainability", that politically motivated frame was invented in the 70s as an ecological analogue of the "New Deal." It was a compromise intended to sustain capitalism during a period of intense environmental attack and to avoid taking meaningful actions on such growth-unfriendly issues as population control and over consumption. The hope was that by working within the system (as contrasted to opposing it or trying to modify it), the conservation community could take the hard edge off unlimited growth and spare the planet the worst of its impacts.
Contrary to anyone's assessment that the concept of sustainability is dead, I suggest that few who possess power or influence will be kissing that idea farewell anytime soon. The decades old concepts of sustainable growth and sustainable development are about to blossom and the result will be unnecessarily extreme and disastrous overshoots on numerous fronts.
Fair Use Notice: This site may contain copyrighted material
the use of which has not always been specifically authorized
by the copyright owner.
We are making such material available in our efforts
to advance understanding of
criminal justice, human rights, political, economic, democratic, scientific,
and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use'
of any such copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
the material on this site is distributed without profit
to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research and educational purposes.
BLOG 
This morning the Associated Press ran 
I've drawn the connection between higher gate fees and lower attendance so many times that I won't do so when introducing the appended article. It makes the point well enough. I would, however, ask you to ponder the following.
On Monday and Tuesday, and from Thursday through Sunday, a walk in the Prescott National Forest costs five bucks. Same with a picnic by a lake or creek. Same with sitting and contemplating the universe. Six days a week, access to the forest is sold as a commodity. Wednesdays, however, are fee-free. 
The Washington Time may not be my favorite media source, but I give them credit for doing a grand job of exposing the Forest Service's latest abuse of the law. 
Several people have asked my reaction to the nomination of Senator Ken Salazar for the position of Interior Secretary. I am, in a word, 'disappointed'. Like much of the conservation community, Wild Wilderness favored the nomination of Representative Raul Grijalva. Unlike much of this community, we took a strongly negative stance against candidate John Berry and are now much relieved that Mr. Berry did not get the nod. 
According to recent news articles, the USFS and NPS are scratching their heads while publicly saying: we haven't a clue why visitation is down so much. They are likewise, and at every opportunity, claiming that today's youths are no longer playing in nature, because they are addicted to videos -- and similar statements.
I feel the same question should be asked today. If anything, the issues are more critical now than in DeVoto’s day, half a century ago.
With regard to "sustainability", that politically motivated frame was invented in the 70s as an ecological analogue of the "New Deal." It was a compromise intended to sustain capitalism during a period of intense environmental attack and to avoid taking meaningful actions on such growth-unfriendly issues as population control and over consumption. The hope was that by working within the system (as contrasted to opposing it or trying to modify it), the conservation community could take the hard edge off unlimited growth and spare the planet the worst of its impacts.