Editorial: President's national parks legacy emerges, alas First, intimidate the professionals; then set to work changing the rules Since 1900, every president has sought a national parks legacy, putting his stamp on protecting and preserving our natural and human history for future generations. President Bush seems to be seeking a curious legacy. For one thing, no president has opened fewer parks. He has signed bills creating the Flight 93 National Historical Park in Pennsylvania and Cedar Creek Civil War battlefield in Virginia. (The latter is not a typical national park: The property is private and closed to visitors except for two seasonal nonprofit sites). He also signed the enlargement of the Craters of the Moon National Monument in Idaho. In contrast, Bill Clinton's administration opened 20 new national park units; George H.W. Bush 16; Ronald Reagan 20; and Jimmy Carter 48. Presidents opened more parks in the national crises of the Depression and World War II than Bush has done. And when Bush leaves office, the backlog for repair of deteriorating national park facilities will be about the same as when he took office. So just what will the president's national parks legacy be? Some recent events offer a clue. On Oct. 11, the parks service director ordered that hiring of park superintendents, deputy and assistant superintendents, associate regional directors and program managers - the top civil service jobs - be centralized at the highest political levels of the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service. The effect is to place the day-to-day running of the parks in the hands of loyalists rather than career professionals. If you like what Bush did to FEMA, you'll love this approach to the national parks. Park service retirees read these hiring changes as an attempt to silence dissent. Robert Arnberger, retired after 34 years in the National Park Service (including as superintendent of the Grand Canyon and regional director for Alaska) believes the Bush administration has "chilled park professionals at every opportunity to pursue political agendas," intimidating those who would speak out to protect park resources. But to what would the dissenters object? To answer that, first look at the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, which requires the park service to leave the parks "unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." Then look at a radical draft revision leaked in August that redefined "unimpaired" to mean "irreversible," opening the parks to all sorts of unsavory changes: billboards, commercial naming rights for buildings, more snowmobiles and ATVs, more air pollution, less wildlife protection. On Oct. 18 the park service released a watered down version. People are still scouring the new document, but the question remains: If the changes are small and cosmetic, why bother? Why not stick with management rules that were revised in 2001 after a six-year public process? On the other hand, if the changes still reflect the true agenda of the August draft, then the American people should oppose them for ruining the 89-year mission of the national parks. Take these two events together and this is how Bush's national parks legacy is shaping up: a parks system more open to commercial exploitation and motorized recreation, entrusted to the care of a new generation of cronies and political appointees, ensconced in office with civil service protections. Some legacy. http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/13752603p-14594418c.html Indigo Nights [log in to unmask] ========================================================= Important Subscriber Information: The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes). If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).