[Allison]

Somewhere in the Wilderness Act, there are specific guidelines laid out about assessing the NPs and designating parts of them Wilderness as appropriate. Washington's all got done through one legislative act, the Washington Wilderness Act of 1988. I'm too lazy to look up the exact language, but if you search the Wildnerness Act (use National Park as the search criteria) it's right there. I had to look at this last week for some other reason and found it without too much digging.

[Damian]

Thanks Brian. That sums it up well. Still interesting that such vastly different rules apply. But then I wouldn't want to have to clear the Hoh trail in the Spring using a cross cut.

[Brian Curtis]

The same rules apply. They still can't use chain saws to clear trails in NPS wilderness without jumping through the same hoops the FS would have to jump through. Each agency has different policies for managing wilderness, but those policies all have to adhere to the Wilderness Act of 1964.

[greg]

NEWS RELEASE: For Immediate Release August 30, 2005 DECLARATION ON THE PRINCIPLES OF PARKS Signed by 73 Canadian and US Environmental Groups Contact: CANADA Anne Sherrod, (250) 358-2610 Valhalla Wilderness Society, New Denver British Columbia Contact: USA Scott Silver, (541) 385-5261 Wild Wilderness, Bend, Oregon Seventy-three Canadian and US environmental groups have issued a declaration on the principles of parks. The joint statement is a repudiation of the privatization and commercialization of parks now occurring in both countries. It says that the primary purpose of parks is to preserve land in a totally natural condition, for the maintenance of healthy ecosystems and the enjoyment of the public. “Parks were a public trust to be protected from economic exploitation,” says Anne Sherrod, Chair of the Valhalla Wilderness Society. “But in the last few years, anti-environment governments are literally destroying our park systems by dismantling the laws that imposed barriers against private control, economic exploitation, and damaging activities." In British Columbia, the BC government has rewritten the Park Act to allow resort development. A new policy, called the BC Park Lodge Policy, allows the government to use taxpayers' dollars to aggressively market leases of BC park land in Japan, the US, Europe and Canada. Most recently, another policy invites private interests to make applications to the government to rewrite park boundaries to further their business interests. And leaked documents reveal that the government plans to completely rewrite the Park Act by 2007. "In the US, special interests favoring industrial tourism and motorized recreation have been working with the Bush Administration behind the scenes in an effort to commercialize, privatize and motorize recreational opportunities within America's National Parks", says Scott Silver, Executive Director of Wild Wilderness. The recent discovery of a hitherto secret proposal written by the Department of Interior's Paul Hoffman, further confirms the scope of these efforts to discard the very principles by which parks have been managed for the past century. "Never before has it been so vital to restate, reaffirm and rally in support of the principles that have guided the management of our parks as it is today," says Silver. How do the groups that signed the Declaration know what these principles are? "Firstly," says Sherrod, "the driving forces behind all our protected areas were the spirit, the willpower and tax contributions of the public," says Sherrod. "The organizations that signed the Declaration represent thousands of those people and did much of the work for preservation. Secondly, the laws that created our park systems are clearly based on these self-evident principles. Thirdly, park planning processes have repeatedly confirmed that the majority of the public passionately believes in these principles. They include: *** The purpose of parks is the preservation of nature. This means no logging, mining, drilling, hydro development or human settlement. Commercial tourism development should stay outside park boundaries. *** Preservation is the most important purpose and top management priority over recreation. *** Parks must not be sold or privatized; they should be fully supported by taxes. *** Parks are for the public interest; private leases in park land undermine the rights of the public. *** Parks are meant to be permanent. Unmaking parks, changing their boundaries, or changing park laws to weaken protection are all betrayals of the public trust. "The Declaration forms a guidepost against which all claims about the purpose and intent of our parks can be measured," says Silver. "In these troubled times, with wild winds of change blowing, our parks help connect society with our most outstanding natural, cultural and historical treasures. The more firmly we hold fast to the principles of parks, the greater will be the benefit for all." -- END -- For the full text of the Principles of Parks and the list of signatories see: www.wildwilderness.org/docs/parks.doc . To sign on your organization, contact anne@vws.org. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Scott Silver, Executive Director Wild Wilderness 248 NW Wilmington Ave. Bend, OR 97701 phone: 541-385-5261 e-mail: ssilver@wildwilderness.org Internet: http://www.wildwilderness.org

[Grinch]

Is anyone really "anti environment"? I believe everyone is for the environment, it's just that some are for managing it while others are for leaving it all alone.

[oosik]

Another editorial on the same subject: http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/08/30/opinion/edparks.php

[Tom]

Funny how these editorials appear to be form letters. I don't see one original paragraph in the last one. Edit: OK, duh, it's the same NYT editorial posted earlier.

[wildernessed]

The best management is a hands off.

[MtnGoat]

then keep people the heck out of the park so it can be preserved properly.

[wildernessed]

Sounds good to me, would be hypocritical, otherwise. I could suffer the consequences of completely limiting human presence so that flora and fauna could be preserved. Never going to happen though, to many interest and men will manage it, just like they are managing the world now. As long as commentors can sit back in comfort, not personally feeling the effects of there management everyone has a smart one liner. That's to be expected, I expect no more, predictable.

[MtnGoat]

that unaffected observer must be elsewhere, since there certainly isn't one here.

[Tom]

I'm not sure what hands off means? No change? Unfortunately, that tends to be a one directional criteria, particularly when it comes to non-wilderness, whether it be in the park or not.

[MtnGoat]

it may mean hands off once the arbitrary "acceptable" level of development and sanctioned degradation takes place. After all, ANY use of the park whatsoever increases damage.... so we're not arguing no damage vs some damage, we're discussing what level of damage is morally acceptable. I do note with some level of incredulity that the letter contains pleas to only permit commercial development outside the park... while one poster already complained about the development outside the park. which is the only place for it to be if it can't be in the park.