[Blue Dome]

I agree it’s important to consider if Mr. Hoffman’s proposals could be implemented without much legislative action, but it’s also important to simply know Mr. Hoffman’s wish list — he being a “former executive director of a local Chamber of Commerce in Wyoming and an aide to Vice President Dick Cheney” and current political appointee — as he’s a “top official” at the Interior Department. Perhaps that’s the larger point: knowing that people with Mr. Hoffman’s wishes hold positions of power within our government.

[MtnGoat]

I'm glad there are. They represent a counterpoint to the other segment represented in govt. I may not agree with his proposals, I am glad there is more than one viewpoint on parks represented.

[greg]

Goat, I fear your sense of logic is a victim of your ideology. That's just plain ass-backwards silly.

[MtnGoat]

Why would I want a department packed with folks of only one viewpoint? Are you telling me there's only one way to view parks and their value, only one way to view how parks should be run, etc?

[greg]

I'm just telling you putting the fox in charge of the henhouse is dumb, no matter how you look at it.

[MtnGoat]

the problem here is I fundamentally disagree that these approaches should not at least be considered. I'm not a lock it up parks guy.

[Tom]

Ho boy, what you just said is tantamount to blasphemy of the Koran. You might as well join Salmon Rushdie in hiding.

[MtnGoat]

I say what I mean to say. I'm prepared for the inevitable savaging by some of the true believers. Many are reasonable folks like yourself who deal with disagreement without rancor, others are filled with something that can only be compared to holy fervor...and they'll call me all kinds of things.

[Newt]

Considering how our elected officials can vote on and pass a budget without reading it, shove some pork into other bills at the last minute and then have a president signing it knowing all the pork's in it, anything can happen. My 2 copper clad steel pennies worth.

[Tom]

After thinking about this a bit more, I'm perplexed by some of the suggested implications. For example, one scenario was that RMNP would be filled with thousands of 4 wheelers that would dig up the entire park. Is there no wilderness designated in RMNP? Or would changes to this handbook override wilderness designation in the parks? That's somewhat hard for me to believe, but I may yet be another victim of logic.

[Malachai Constant]

The document is like an office procedural manual not a law. Nonetheless it shows the current administrations appointee mindset. It would not need to be passed by the legislature but would have to be implemented under the Administrative Procedure act with hearings and publication. Even under the act however hearings may be held in inconvenient locations with little notice on the whim of the administrators. You cannot repeal a law this way but determining which laws and how they are administrated can be just as effective a way to undermine protections. Similarly if no officers or $$ are in place for enforcement there is effectively no law.

[Eric]

RMNP does not have a wilderness designation. There is one tract of land which was USFS land that was part of a larger USFS wilderness- either Never Summer, Indian Peaks, or Comanche Peak- and that basin was transferred from the USFS to the NPS and annexed by the park after wilderness designation. But that's it. So all told something like 5000 acres of wilderness out of a 300,000 acre park. Don't hold me to those figure as they are estimates but they are roughly correct; I'm sure someone could find the exact numbers on nps.gov or wilderness.net. Rocky Mtn is being squished in by Estes Park and all of the other subdivisions being built in the surrounding areas. It's not an uncommon story, park once as part of a sea of open lands is now becoming surrounding by exurbs and weekend cabins and the like. Remember, NPS managed a lot of their land in a way akin to wilderness for a long time but much of it was never formerly designated as wilderness and that holds true to this day. Even for instance Rainier and Olympic and Stephen Mather too were not wilderness till 1988, many decades after the parks were created. The battles have tended to be over USFS land where the dogma of multiple use inevitable fails as resource extraction and conservation/recreation really aren't very compatible and so the fight is over which of those will win the day and NPS land was ignored by both sides as it wasn't going to be used for resources and would be managed from a conservation for recreation perspective. THat's something that will change as mechanized recreation has become more popular with snowmobiles and quads and such and also as the current administration has really started to eye Interior lands and all lands that have natural gas/oil for extraction. It's also a big reason why the GOP has gone towards having BLM as their favorite land manager for new wildernesses post-1994 for various reasons.

[greg]

[Blue Dome]

[MtnGoat]

well there you go. the only permissible way to view park usage.