National park changes
Looks like the Feds are making arrangements to allow some of the National Parks to stay open even if Congress doesn't fund them. Parks article
Forum Discussion
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.
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.
