[Allison]

WASHINGTON, Aug. 25 - A high-ranking appointee at the Interior Department proposed fundamentally changing the way national parks are managed, putting more emphasis on recreational use and loosening protections against overuse, noise and damage to the air, water, wildlife or scenery. But a group of senior National Park Service employees rejected the proposal at a meeting this month. Read the rest of it here. No registration required to read the article as of this posting. Comments?

[Tom]

Difficult to comment on. That article is extremely vague about what was proposed, not to mention it sounds like whatever was proposed is not going to happen.

[oosik]

It is fortunate that he didn't have the power to make it happen all on his own, but there was still the process for it to be reviewed by others. So many changes lately to environmental regulations are getting inacted by "executive order" which doesn't allow for review, oversight or congressional representation.

[Chief Paulina]

[sooperfly]

I wasn't able to view that site but here is an LA Times article.

[kiliki]

There's plenty of specific stuff in that article to be afraid of. Eliminating references to evolution in NPS educational programs? Requiring an illegal action to "irreversibly harm" rather than just "harm" resources? The political appointees at Interior are seriously scary.

[David¹]

[Allison]

If anyone hears of an organized group that opposes these changes (the LA Times piece spoke of some ex NPS employees) please post it here. I'd like to help out. Man, this administration is hard on the environment. A little about the guy who runs the NPS, lifted from the LA Times piece:

[Tom]

[Charlesminight]

you got to love bush he's going to make the rich richer even if he has to kill the plant to do it

[Tom]

So how does this make the rich richer? These threads are always amusing to watch develop.

[Blue Dome]

[Blue Dome]

[Green Mountain Hiker]

Blue Dome, if you remember, we had this very same discussion about this administration's potential harm to the National Park system. There were tons of naysayers who called us "sky-is-falling" types. Well - look who is correct. We said that they were going to try to use the National Park System as a way for their corporate friends to make an extra buck. I cannot describe the level of hatred I have for the Bush administration and its attack on the environment. It is not enought to spoil the rest of the nation, no, they want the whole enchillada. I recently went to RMNP. It is a glorious place, one of true bueaty. I cannot even imagine that there are people who think that putting cell towers in such as place is a good idea. There would be nothing worse than for a place like that to be filled with thousands (and folks - on the weekends in the summer, it would be thousands), of 4 wheelers literally digging up the entire park. All of those beautiful mountain meadows would be run over with tracks, destoyed fragile eco-systems, and declining animal populations. To all those who think this is good stewardship of the parks, you are not truley interested in hiking, nature, or the preservation of our natural places.

[wildernessed]

Are you surprised, many parks are impinged upon by commercial developement all around there perimeters and I expect them to chip away at what's remaining slowly, but surely.