War Memorials in National Preserves

The US Supreme Court heard a case about a war memorial that has been in the Mojave desert since 1934 when private citizens erected a memorial to everyone who has died in a war.

Of course, once the land became part of the federal preserve, issues concerning the separation of church and state bubbled up. In litigation, the US District Court (and a decision upholding that ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) required the cross associated with the memorial to be removed. Subsequently the Department of Interior transfered ownership of the small site back into private ownership and did not appeal the decision by the appellate court.

Today's hearing was more technical, with the ACLU challenging the transfer of the land.

Seems to me with a major war in Afghanistan, an economy still in floundering, health care reform now a joke, and major environmental issues to worry about, this seems rather insignificant. While I am sympathetic to people who don't like to see crosses on or around public spaces, it is, truly, something we see on a daily basis. Can we not worry about other stuff before we begin to take this on?

On another note, apparently Justice Sotomayor has asked more questions in three days of hearings that Justice Thomas has since he was sworn in in 1991. Not that I think asking questions is either good or bad or even demonstrates a curious mind, but I just found that fact interesting!

Nature and People

I thought this article was spot on regarding the National Parks.

The more we disassociate people from nature, making nature "something else," the more likely we continue to make poor decisions about managing our Earth.

While I am a huge advocate for National Parks, they have become not much more than amazing museums for meticulously preserved nature. The thing is, nature is very dynamic and includes human interactions with it.

National Parks as Our Nation's Commons

It's an interesting idea, our National Parks as our nation's commons. But I think, contrary to what the author thinks, it really only works on the National Mall, in Washington, DC.

Anyway, here is the link to the article.

National Parks and Ken Burns

Beginning Sunday, September 27 at 8 PM on PBS, Ken Burns will present his new six part series on the National Parks. Fabulous photos, Dayton Duncan waxing philosophical about all thing Americana, the famous Ken Burns fade in/fade out photo effect, great folk and bluegrass music, and ultimately, little discussion about the conflicts.

Reviewers suggest Burns does not address the museum/preservation versus tourist conflicts with the National Parks that still consume Park advocates today. We have written about several of these conflicts, including recently the Stehekin road washout and the fish stocking in North Cascades National Park.

But that does not detract from the magnificent television tribute to "Americas finest legacy," our National Parks.

How can you resist?

Guns and Politics

Just before Memorial Weekend, President Obama signed, without comment, an amendment to the credit card reform act which will allow loaded, concealed weapons into National Parks.

Couple of things.  First, in reading the response to this amendment, particularly by the National Park Rangers, I am more than a little concerned that many if not most rangers believe many if not most visitors already carry weapons!  Yikes!  Is that how our rangers are being trained, to believe every single person visiting a National Park is armed and dangerous?  Last time I'll ever ask where the restroom is!

Second, let's just acknowledge right here and now that the National Rifle Association and the "gun lobby," has won the gun control debate.  It's over.  Despite people's paranoia that Obama is going to "take away guns," it ain't going to happen.  The buzzer has sounded, game over.

But, mark my words.  Every time a charismatic mega-fauna is shot (read grizzly, moose, bison, wolf) in a National Park, the National Park Ranger's Association will shout out loud that loaded and concealed weapons should not be allowed inside the boundaries of National Parks.  The debate is not over but the game is.

Forests and Obama

President Obama batted 1000 on his Supreme Court nominee.  But when it comes to our national forests, he may have been a little quick.  Homer Wilkes is a career bureaucrat with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, which happens to be part of the Department of Agriculture (where the US Forest Service also resides).  But to the chagrin of foresters, forest activists, and more than likely the employees of the US Forest Service, Wilkes was nominated to be the Undersecretary for natural resources and the environment.  

Certainly westerners, who believe the Forest Service belongs in their domain, are upset because the nominee is not a westerner, much less any experience in forests.  In fact, his role with the NRCS has been strictly focused on urban issues.

While President Obama seems enamored with the big environmental issues of the day, such as global climate change, he seems disinterested in land based controversies, as if he can simply throw a little attention toward oil and gas leases, forest issues, national park management conflicts, and they will go away simply by the force of his charm.  It's curious that when President Obama signed the credit card reform act he mentioned nothing about the rider allowing loaded guns into National Parks, which according to Park employees, could be a potential problem (although I am not sure it will be given we probably don't have a clue how many loaded guns already went into the parks anyway).

To turn the huge ship around on global climate change will not only require modifications on greenhouse gas emissions, but also a long and thoughtful look at how we manage our natural resources, particularly forests.  Appointments dealing with national forests and other resource based lands is not a throw-away.  

Nature, Natural, and National Parks

Over the weekend, the North Cascades National Park announced that unless Congress legislatively directs the National Park staff otherwise, the Park is not only going to prevent volunteers from stocking high alpine lakes within the National Park boundaries with trout triploids, it will also eradicate the current fish within those lakes.  The North Cascade National Park's reasoning is those fish are not native to the high alpine lakes.  In fact, in their opinion, no fish are native.

The Park staff are supported in this by the North Cascades Conservation Council, a wilderness advocacy group, who believes the "lakes should be restored to their natural state."

Here is my question: what is natural?  The North Cascades have been hiked, climbed, ridden over and through by humans for centuries.  Native Americans hunted deer and bear, gathered berries, cut the timber and more than likely fished the rivers.  English, French, and American fur trappers scoured the area, gold miners panned, and boosters sought to make money off the Swiss Alps-like beauty.  More than likely there is very little land that has not witnessed some sort of human activity.  We have altered the landscape and the place has altered us.

To add to this issue, the fish stocking has been taking place for over 40 years, long before conservation advocates stood over a table drawing lines on a map defining the North Cascades National Park.  In other words, the fish stocking preceded the creation of the Park.  Lines on a map, after all, are arbitrary.  Ironically, just outside the boundaries, the United States Forest Service will allow fish stocking in the high alpine lakes within their jurisdiction.

Meanwhile, the National Park Service complains that visitors have dwindled in the parks.  National Park folks tend to believe it's because children do not want to go outside anymore.  However, note that numbers for fishing and hunting are down.  I think there is another reason that people make other choices.

Reaching the main entrance of any National Park these days you are delivered a set of "rules," along with admonishments about fishing, hunting, walking dogs, campfires...you get the drift.  We no longer have parks, we have museums.  As a result, people don't go because the recreation seems so constricted.  

Several years ago I wanted to fish a section of the fabled Yellowstone River within the Yellowstone National Park boundary.  I practice catch and release fly fishing.  Think Brad Pitt and A River Runs Through It.  When I pulled into a parking area, rigged up, I was told by another visitor that there was a sign: No Fishing.  I asked a ranger, way up the road, and he said: "we don't allow fishing because some people don't think it's scenic."  I kid you not.

We are in a sad place when we decide what is natural and where it "belongs."  To  not be able to look at trout in a lake, planted or not, as wild, means we have truly separated ourselves from nature.  That we continue to have some 19th century ideal of natural as something other than the Douglas fir outside my window, the Crow that just flew off the rooftop, or the Flicker attempting to find it's mate trilling down the street.  Natural, apparently, can only be in some humanly designated pristine sport, which incidentally, isn't really pristine.  

It's as if we have to have an either/or.  Pristine/cultured, virgin/...well you know.  And nature isn't really that way.  Nature and what is natural is all around us.  And we should be encouraging people to get outside, hike 12 miles, burn some calories, and catch a natural fish in a gorgeous lake.  It doesn't get much better.