Very good tongue in cheek editorial: Bushies Plan to Destroy our National Parks

[landusepbb]

Bushies Plan to Destroy our National Parks

R. E. Smith Jr.

The Bush administration continues its subversive agenda to destroy life as we’ve known it. Although not quite as bad as directing Hurricane Kartrina to kill black people in New Orleans, an official in the National Park Service plots to destroy our national parks, according to New York Times editorial editors. Worse, they say, he wants to promote horrendous secular sins allowing the sale of “religious merchandise” and purging reference to evolution in our parks. Gasp!

Just how far will these people go to destroy our history and way of life?

Times editors recently uncovered a “secret draft revision” of Park Service policy “circulating within the Interior Department.” Which begs the question: what could be secret about a draft policy spread around in a public land agency? Anyway, this vile person, one Paul Hoffman a deputy assistant secretary, has no credibility with the editors. Mr. Hoffman ran a chamber of commerce office in Cody, Wyoming, he was a congressional aide to the feared and reviled Dick Cheney, and he’s not your basic Parkie; he’s had “no park service experience.” Goodness, how dare anyone suggest public land policy who hasn’t been a sidekick of Smoky Bear, or Ranger Rick?

So, how does Mr. Hoffman propose to destroy our national parks? Well, he wants to open the parks for greater use and enjoyment by more people, and he would like to have more commercial services available to them; further, Hoffman’s secret rules would allow state and local officials more say in park management decisions. How out of touch can one be?

These ideas, of course, threaten the power of bureaucrats and the environmental preservationists who now run the Park Service. Policies limiting use means less hassle for federal employees, who receive high pay and good benefits regardless of their efforts; and it fits the agenda of preservationists, who demand that more of our land be locked up from use—except by plants and animals.

Times editors admit that we go to parks to use and enjoy them, but they expect the land to “exist substantially unchanged.” This doesn’t jibe with park history, or, common sense.

First, we have millions of acres of national parks and federally controlled lands designated as forests, recreation areas, monuments, preserves, seashores, parkways, lakeshores, reserves, scenic rivers and trails—Yellowstone alone, our oldest national park, includes over 2.2 million acres located in parts of three states.

In 1872 when Yellowstone National Park was established, these lands were largely inaccessible except to hardy souls such as John Muir who would tolerate primitive and sometimes dangerous conditions. Congress authorized construction of roads, trails, scenic overlooks, campgrounds and water access sites. Railroad tracks were laid; parkways were constructed; cabins and grand hotels were built to accommodate visitors.

These works enhanced the parks and opened them to more people and a variety of uses. Such places as Acadia, Shenendoah, the Great Smoky Mountains, the Everglades, Yosemite, Bryce Canyon, Sequoia and Mt. Rainier could now be enjoyed by almost everyone—people, otherwise with no hope of experiencing the grandeur and inspiration of these places, could come there because of infrastructure and private services available.

We can compromise the values of natural landscapes and recreational land use. There is plenty of land to build more trails and roads for use by autos and buses, as well as off-road users, and preserve the most prominent and important natural landscapes. Lodges, restaurants, campgrounds and parking areas can be designed to fit landforms and match the local geology. Landscape architects can blend manmade creations with native rocks, vegetation and water features. These works could be done using the genius of private developers, saving taxpayers money.

Rather than impair our park resources, as Times editors believe Hoffman’s policy will do, we have an opportunity to enhance them.

And state and local government officials, closer to the public interests than federal bureaucrats, should take part in policy decisions about use of these lands to best serve the users of these diverse resources. Too often, powerful environmental groups unduly influence public policy to promote their preservation agenda.

The opportunities for greater use and enjoyment of our parklands shouldn’t be limited by the deficient thinking of those who insist that change equates with destruction. There are remote “wilderness” areas aplenty for those who would seek them. But our national park system policy should not favor Sierra Club hikers and wild animals at the expense of the rest of us who also have a right to use our public lands in comfort and safety.

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/fre..._20050911.html

[IronBull]

Originally Posted by landuseorc

Too often, powerful environmental groups unduly influence public policy to promote their preservation agenda.

Very true. We need more common sense and less fanatical idealism running the show.