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).
|
