Posted on 09/14/2010 5:08:13 AM PDT by marktwain
Did this talk about taking back Denali National Park seem weird and off-the-cliff to you? It shouldn't have because we were forewarned. Instead of 'What the...?!', our reaction should have been 'Ah-ha'.
Why on earth did Joe Miller pick on Denali right away? Couldn't he be content with more modest targets, then quietly work up to ... the crown jewel of the Alaska National Parks which everybody in the entire nation instantly recognizes?
We were forewarned, because we now have "Guns In Parks." The key part of the new rules is that the regulation of guns in the national parks shall follow those of the state in which park lands are located. Guns-in-Parks transfers a part of, an aspect of the control of national parks, back to the states. State laws now control guns in national parks. Everywhere.
Miller put Denali on the list because he wanted his suggestion that Alaska recover more control of federal lands to catch the attention of folks, firstly in Alaska, but everywhere else, too. Because -- it shouldn't come as a surprise -- what he's talking about will apply everywhere else, too. So sure -- he wanted Denali to guarantee notice.
The reason we now have guns in parks is that there was never anything about the establishment of national parks that suspended the Second Amendment. It was simply a mistake to outlaw guns. It was categorically unconstitutional from day one. Time and circumstances have caught up with this misstep.
There's more where that came from ... and Joe Miller knows it.
The national parks are legally based on a law called The Organic Act of 1916. That link is to a copy of the act on the official National Park Service's website. The act is very brief, only a page or two long, easy to read.
The most popular part of the act, often seen quoted, goes:
[T]o conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
A less-popular part of the act, rarely seen quoted, goes:
[The Secretary of the Interior] may also, upon terms and conditions to be fixed by him, sell or dispose of timber in those cases where in his judgment the cutting of such timber is required in order to control the attacks of insects or diseases or otherwise conserve the scenery or the natural or historic objects in any such park, monument, or reservation. He may also provide in his discretion for the destruction of such animals and of such plant life as may be detrimental to the use of any of said parks, monuments, or reservations. He may also grant privileges, leases, and permits for the use of land for the accommodation of visitors in the various parks, monuments, or other reservations herein provided for, but for periods not exceeding thirty years; and no natural curiosities, wonders, or objects of interest shall be leased, rented, or granted to anyone on such terms as to interfere with free access to them by the public: Provided, however, That the Secretary of the Interior may, under such rules and regulations and on such terms as he may prescribe, grant the privilege to graze live stock within any national park, monument, or reservation herein referred to when in his judgment such use is not detrimental to the primary purpose for which such park, monument, or reservation was created, except that this provision shall not apply to the Yellowstone National Park: And provided further, That the Secretary of the Interior may grant said privileges, leases, and permits and enter into contracts relating to the same with responsible persons, firms, or corporations without advertising and without securing competitive bids... [emph. added]
The parks were never intended to be 'untouchable'. The very law that establishes National Parks very prominently provides for extensive use of them, in a variety of ways. (Alaska parks do tend to preserve more of the original legal intent of such parks than those in the rest of the US.)
Like the mistake of banning guns, a dramatic departure from the provisions of relevant law has come to pass with respect to our national parks. Corrections are due, and overdue.
We can have parks, and access resources within them, too. Under the law. In most circumstances, the use and extraction of resources will be done properly by the states within which such lands are located. It is to be expected that following reform of the park system, we will still have parks, but that they will be managed under the laws that actually provide for their existence. And use.
In general, other types of federal lands have also gradually fallen under 'policies' which deviate from the legal basis of their establishment & existence. The time may well be right for an extensive "house-cleaning" ... and Joe Miller knows it.
Ted Clayton has been a farmer, fisherman, logger, sailor ... and a staunch proponent of open spaces and nature.
perhaps our nation’s only deposit of low-sulfur coal would be accessible again despite its being locked up within a national monument by BJ Clinton so that his buddies in the Lippo group could make more money off of heir owned deposit of low sulfur coal in Indonesia...
It is not just “The Park” it is the massive ‘buffer zones’ that surround the Park.
Be intersting to see that outcome of the election, the anti-Miller ads have already started....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.