National park changes

Yeah it's hard to argue that a blasted landscape has higher biodiversity and more critters per square mile than a forested river bank. And there are many miles of bare dirt for the critters that like that.

All they probably need to to is to plant some seed spots along the bank and let that spread naturally. But I am no forester. There are plenty of vegetated acres west of the park in the state park that they could use for seed stock.

I would say restore the trees to what they once were, as much as possible. I wouldn't spend every dime in the budget doing it though A little common sense could go a long way.
And, yes use herbicides. I'm looking out my back window at a USF&W Federal Refuge. They proudly announce they are planting native trees and using herbicides to kill competing vegetation.

DM6156 wrote:
https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/visitation-numbers.htm

Great Smoky Mountains National park has no entrace fee, it's the most visited "National Park". Over 11 million visitors in 2018, next most visited was Grand Canyon with just over 6 million.

Then again, it's located within a short drive from many highly populated areas.

Wonder how their budget looks.

Also keep in mind that visitation numbers include every vehicle on the roads. Urban area parks like near me have high numbers simply because a lot of commuters pass thru twice per day. In more remote parks the visitation numbers indicate true park visitors.

A busy road passes thru GSMNP and carries a lot of traffic and all may not be park visitors. Also due to the proximity to Gatlinburg many tourists may briefly drive into the park and leave again although they didn't really come for the purpose of visiting the park.

https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/visitation-numbers.htm

Great Smoky Mountains National park has no entrace fee, it's the most visited "National Park". Over 11 million visitors in 2018, next most visited was Grand Canyon with just over 6 million.

Then again, it's located within a short drive from many highly populated areas.

Wonder how their budget looks...

Again, there are some comments on the mark and others that are misguided.

The park entry fees DO stay with the park, and this has been the situation for over a decade.

True, the NPS has set internal rules on how it manages FLREA funds, and therefore the NPS can change those rules - as long as it stays within the guidelines of the act passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in 2004.

Other agencies (USFS, BLM, USF&WS) have adopted their own rules on administering FLREA funds and those can be significantly different in terms of what projects/people can be funded. So the NPS could change their rules as to how the funds are used to be more like some other federal agencies.

As for questioning the comment a Park Ranger made about planting trees - well, more information is needed. About 67% of Big Bend Park is listed as proposed Wilderness. Is the area in question within these areas? Although it is not officially designated Wilderness, proposed Wilderness is required to be managed so as to preserve its character to become Wilderness. Therefore, planting trees may not be possible in proposed Wilderness. Reforestation would benefit some wildlife, but it would decrease habitat for other wildlife - especially the kind that has been there for 75 years. The idea of doing active vegetative management in Wilderness or proposed Wilderness is a very slippery slope. To what point in the "historic norm" should it be restored? How many trees are enough? How much management do you continue to do? Once you plant the trees, do you then go in to release them from competing vegetation? Do you go in and kill off any and all non-native invasive plant species? Do you use prescribed fire? Do you use herbicides?

If trees were once on that land, they may come back on their own - or they may not. 75 years is not a long time to nature.

That Ranger may not have been as "stupid" as the poster made her out to be. Perhaps she knew what she was talking about. And I don't think we can second guess what John Muir may have wanted. While Mr. Muir may have been the father of federal Wilderness, it was Congress who passed the Wilderness Act, and the many subsequent laws which regulate Wilderness and Roadless areas. Those laws are what federal managers must follow.

beemerphile1 wrote:
Entrance fees are insufficient to operate the parks and in fact, most US National Parks do not have entrance fees.

That is undoubtedly true, minor parks rarely if ever have fees. So the Congress would have to provide for them as they already do. But the major top 20 or so parks, Yosemite, YNP, Glacier, Grand Canyon and so on have large entry fees and because of the heavy visitor load have great need for extra income. Alibiades Flint Quarry (if I spelled that right) has few visitors and much less pressure from mobs of tourists. The two times we visited we seemed to be the only visitors in the park at the time.

Frankly the park system needs a decade or more hiatus on buying new parks. They need to use that time and money to fix the problems in the existing parks. The park workers need to concentrate on getting that done by streamlining the procedures for getting that work going. And on providing for the visitors to the park.

I have heard some really stupid things in my decades of going to parks. I recall, for example, a park ranger in Big Bend saying that the river valley on the west side of the park was forested 75 years ago before people cut the trees down. I asked why don't we replant the missing trees and other vegetation? And she replied, seemingly shocked at the question, "Oh we can't do that. We have to preserve the park as it is!"

That sort of attitude shows a major problem in those worker's thinking. Reforesting that valley would benefit the critters in the area, increase their population, and benefit the visitors too. I suspect John Muir would be for restoration to the historic norm. The damage was done by humans and humans should undo it.

Entrance fees are insufficient to operate the parks and in fact, most US National Parks do not have entrance fees.

rexlion wrote:
Fund the workers' salaries from the entrance fees. That seems like a very sensible move. Who in their right mind would get enraged by it?

Agree. It is really only a minor change in accounting rules. Currently, the entrance fees can only be used to fund salaries for maintenance staff, with all the other functions funded by appropriations. The new rule allows each Park to determine who is funded by entrance fees, not restricted to maintenance staff.

Another example of people trying to politicize a trivial internal regulation change.

Fund the workers' salaries from the entrance fees. That seems like a very sensible move. Who in their right mind would get enraged by it?

agesilaus wrote:


Nothing new about that, I got mine 5 or 6 years ago. Just bring your VA card showing you are service connected to any park entry station and they'll give you a pass. Rangers know about this. If they send you to the gift shop worker be prepared for head scratching and maybe a hard time.

And this not only applies to vets but if your doctor says you are permanently disabled for any cause, a letter from him will get a pass. That's when we had a problem with the gift shop lady.

Plus an extra added bonus, Florida residents get a state free pass lifetime renewable the same way, VA card. Check your state they may do the same.

We get a free day pass & 3 days free camping if SC, I didn't know about National Parks.