The NY Times on the National Park Service's controversial plan to rewrite the management policies for the national parks:
Crossroads in the National Parks, Editorial, NY Times: The Interior Department has extended the period in which the public may comment on the National Park Service's controversial plan to rewrite the management policies for the national parks.
But the extension was unnecessary, just as the rewrite itself is unnecessary. The public has already spoken and so have its elected representatives. Their central message is that the administration's proposed revisions will serve no one, least of all the parks, and that the Interior Department would be well advised to abandon the effort.
The main problem with the proposed revisions is that, taken together, they shift the management focus from the park service's central, historic mission — preserving natural resources for the enjoyment of future generations — to commercial and recreational use of the park for today's generation. ... air quality and wilderness are especially at risk since the policy appears to invite greater use of snowmobiles and other off-road vehicles.
We hope that Congress can dissuade Ms. Norton and her parks director, Fran Mainella, from proceeding with these unnecessary changes. But even if it does, it will still have one more battle to fight. And that is to provide the money the National Park Service needs to operate the parks properly and to repair their deteriorating infrastructure.
President Bush's new budget calls for a $100 million cut in park appropriations. Viewed cynically, deliberately underfinancing the parks could create the necessary cover for opening the parks to more commercial activity — the last thing the parks need. It also makes a mockery of one of the few campaign promises George W. Bush ever made about the environment: his promise in 2000 to end the maintenance backlog in the national parks. The sharpest cuts — some $84.6 million — would come from money for construction and major maintenance, the very area Mr. Bush promised to address. ...
This battle — as well as the larger battle over the parks' true purpose —isn't likely to end soon. ... But if the public and a broad array of its elected representatives — not to mention the men and women who have devoted their careers to the park service — want to see the parks carefully preserved and kept quiet and clean and safe, on whose behalf is the Bush administration really fighting?
