Plan to Change U.S. Parks

[Runmud]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-parks26aug26,0,1637602.story?coll=la-home-nation

Concerning article in the LATimes. You might ask what this has to do with this forum. I think the current administration in Washington quietly weakens protections of national resources and wildlife while allowing an increase in commercial activity and gas powered vehicles.

I guess I just don't want it to happen quietly.

[Tim Seaver]

From http://www.npsretirees.org/index.htm

The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees is made up of former employees of the National Park Service (NPS), numbering over 410 and with more joining each day. Many members were senior leaders of NPS and many of received awards for stewardship of our country's natural and cultural resources. In their personal lives, CNPSR members come from the broad spectrum of political affiliations. As park managers, rangers and employees in other disciplines, they devoted their professional lives to maintaining and protecting our national parks for the benefit of all Americans - both living and those yet to be born. CNPSR members have served this country well, and their credibility and integrity in speaking out on these issues should not go ignored.

The coalition cited these examples of what the rules would bring:

* The use of snowmobiles would be radically expanded at Yellowstone and other national parks, allowing them to travel over any paved road in winter.
* Grazing and mining would be elevated to "park purposes," thus ensuring their continuation.
* The use of jet skis, ORVs, dirt bikes and other mechanized vehicles would be permitted on a virtually unrestricted basis.
* Tourist flights would increase, impacting the natural peace and quiet at parks.
* Rangers would be forced to kill bears at parks like Yellowstone if they damaged private property.

Disgusting.

[MattC]

I agree that these short-sighted stealth attacks on our natural heritage/resources are appalling, and that it is an issue which transcends political affiliation. Or at least it should.

Teddy Roosevelt must be turning in his grave.

Matt

[twochordcool]

I agree that these short-sighted stealth attacks on our natural heritage/resources are appalling, and that it is an issue which transcends political affiliation

Yeah, but you know generally which party would be for these changes and which party would be against them.

Right?

[Rik]

Yeah, but you know generally which party would be for these changes and which party would be against them.

Right?

I don't see much difference between parties. Special interests (those with enough $ to buy votes) control both parties.

[kurtteej]

I don't see much difference between parties. Special interests (those with enough $ to buy votes) control both parties.

Well said. Party affiliation is no guage of environmental awareness.

The federal government needs to keep up with the desires of everyone. I'm personally against the boundless snowmobile thing because idiots tend to torment hungry animals (like in Yellowstone), however there are those that WANT to ride snowmobiles in national parks that want to torment hungry tired defenseless animals.

State parks and local municipalities tend to do a much better job of keeping control of things. I rented a house last summer on Squam Lake in New Hampshire -- they had a great rule about motor boats in that you needed an inspection prior to putting a motor boat into the water. The reason for that was to protect the lake from a virulent weed that takes over entire sections of lakes when it invades. I can't see the federal government effectively doing that, no matter WHICH party is in control.

KT

[Gray Ghost]

???

PLEASE, fellas! I agree that both parties have their environmental shortcomings, but ANY other administration pales in comparison to our current one and their insistence to gladly defacate on the environment. Drilling in the AWR, the Clear Skies Initiative (which apparently is out to clear the skies of all birds), and on and on. They want to take animals off the endangered species list when they are not even close to being recovered. National Parks and wilderness areas ARE IN DANGER with the environmental record of good old Georgie boy.

Check out this site for some specifics: www.bushgreenwatch.org

Is it a slanted site? OF COURSE! It's an indictment of this administration's environmental policy. Have fun with it. -GG

[redhawk]

At least the ANWR drilling got shot down.

Fortunately the arrogance and incompetence of this administration is turning even the party loyalists against them.

[Kevin]

I don't see much difference between parties. Special interests (those with enough $ to buy votes) control both parties.

While I think we're posting good stuff here (and yes, sometimes the truth hurts), I think we all need to follow Rik's lead here and try to keep the discussion on the facts. This same posting trend in past politically charged threads has only brought personal strife into the forums.

Politcal debates are not always one sided, even if most of the fingers are pointing in one general direction. I don't think the intent of this thread was to convince people of what they are already well aware of (see Bush's low approval ratings on all issues right now). It's to raise awareness on the matter so we can choose, on our own and in our own way, to endorse or oppose the bill.

As a whole, adk forum members are stewards of the land. We want to protect it. But we, as individuals, need to respect that others do not see the environment as a fragile entity as we do. It is our responsibility, as stewards, to educate and not scorn someone for having an opposing view (as tempting as it is). That's the spiritual solution to the problem. Otherwise you further alienate those with opposing view points, and we all get lumped into that 'tree hugger' category and get labeled extremists.

[Gray Ghost]

I don't think the intent of this thread was to convince people of what they are already well aware of (see Bush's low approval ratings on all issues right now).

True, true.

I was just following past forum suggestions to post links to support one's argument. I don't plan on haggling.

[takeahike46er]

At least the ANWR drilling got shot down.

It wasn't shot down. It was included in the budget amendment where it was forced through.

[redhawk]

It wasn't shot down. It was included in the budget amendment where it was forced through.

I've read three different articles, one on the USA TOday in the last couple of weeks that said the amendment was shot down as is. That unless it was removed, the budget would not be passed. So far I have not seen anything to the contrary.

What's your source? Mine are below and are just four days old.....
If you check some of the right wing websites, there is a cry by conservative and big oil owned republicans to replace Dennis Haysbert as speaker if they win the house again next year.

Unless something has passed in the Senate in the past four where there is also a majority that wants to drop the bill it would appear that for the time at least the Bush and Big oil agenda on this subject is shot down this time. If Bush's ratings don't go up drastically in the next couple of years then it will not be a part of this administrations "accomplishments".
**************************************
AP, Nov 11, 2005

"WASHINGTON - For a quarter-century, environmentalists have succeeded in blocking efforts to drill for oil in what they consider a pristine, cherished patch of tundra in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

But with sky-high fuel prices and a wider Republican majority in Congress, their long fight to keep oil companies out of the refuge looked to be in trouble. Then they got some help from an unexpected place: House Republicans angry over cuts to social programs.

House leaders put off plans Thursday to vote on the budget-cutting package because of opposition to issues unrelated to the Alaska refuge — deep cuts in Medicaid, food stamps and student loans. The leaders earlier were forced to jettison the Alaska drilling provision from the bill after a group of GOP moderates said they would not vote for the budget if ANWR were included.

They also dropped from the budget document plans to allow states to authorize oil and gas drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts — regions currently under a drilling moratorium.

Developing the refuge, where geologists believe 10.4 billion barrels of oil rest beneath a coastal strip of tundra, has been a top energy priority for President Bush and Republican leaders in Congress for years. Bush first called for its development in his 2000 presidential campaign.

The House in various forms passed authorization to drill in the refuge five times, but each time the measure died in the Senate, where drilling supporters couldn’t get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

Over the years, protecting the refuge and its wildlife — caribou, polar bears, musk oxen and tens of thousands of migratory birds — became a cause celebre for environmentalists and conservationists of all political stripes."

==================================================

usa today 11/10/2005

"House leaders drop Arctic drilling from budget bill

WASHINGTON (AP) — House leaders late Wednesday abandoned an attempt to push through a hotly contested plan to open an Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil drilling, fearing it would jeopardize approval of a sweeping budget bill Thursday.

They also dropped from the budget document plans to allow states to authorize oil and gas drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts — regions currently under a drilling moratorium.

The actions were a stunning setback for those who have tried for years to open a coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil development, and a victory for environmentalists who have lobbied hard against the drilling provisions. President Bush has made drilling in the Alaska refuge one of his top energy priorities.

The House Rules Committee formalized the change late Wednesday when it issued the terms of the debate when the House takes up the budget package on Thursday.

The decision to drop the the ANWR drilling language came after GOP moderates said they would oppose the budget if it was kept in the bill. The offshore drilling provision was also viewed as too contentious and a threat to the bill, especially in the Senate.

Last week, the Senate included ANWR drilling in its version of the budget, so the matter will have to be thrashed out in negotiations between the Senate and House, if the budget is approved by the House.

Protection of the Alaska refuge from oil companies has been championed by environmentalists for years. The House repeatedly has approved drilling in the refuge as part of broad energy legislation, only to see their effort blocked each time by the threat of a filibuster in the Senate.

The budget bill is immune from fillibuster, but drilling proponents suddenly found it hard to get the measure accepted by a majority of the House.

That's because Democrats heartily oppose the overall budget bill, giving House GOP opponents of drilling in the Arctic enough leverage to have the matter killed."

[takeahike46er]

You might be right. I had heard a blurb on NPR recently that made it sound as if it was a sure thing that the drilling would happen. I guess that has changed, thankfully.