Posted on 03/12/2003 8:41:58 AM PST by cogitator
Bipartisan Bill Would Ban Snowmobiles in National Parks
WASHINGTON, DC, March 6, 2003 (ENS) - A bipartisan bill to phase out snowmobile use in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks was introduced in Congress Thursday. The legislation, its sponsors say, would save the parks from the threats posed by the Bush administration's decision to permit increased snowmobile use in both parks.
The Yellowstone Protection Act was introduced in the Senate by Senators Lincoln Chafee, a Rhode Island Republican, and Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat. It was unveiled in the House by Representatives Rush Holt, a New Jersey Democrat, and Connecticut Republican Christopher Shays.
"This administration continues to ignore its own scientific evidence and the clear voice of the American people and we will not stand for it," Holt said. "Yellowstone is the people's park, and Congress created the National Park Service over 80 years ago to protect it.
"Today we in Congress are taking action to ensure that the Park Service does not compromise its founding mission. We must protect Yellowstone for future generations of Americans to enjoy."
If signed into law, the measure would overrule the National Park Service's recent decision and ban snowmobiles from Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks.
"Science, law and pubic opinion all strongly support phasing out snowmobiles," Shays said.
The snowmobile controversy in the national parks began in 1998 when the park service began studying the effects of snowmobile use on park wildlife, air quality, human health and visitor experience. The study found snowmobile use was damaging all of them, as did a review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
During a public comment period on the snowmobile rule, some 80 percent of the 350,000 comments received by the Park Service supported the phaseout of snowmobiles, but the Bush administration rejected the rule in favor of snowmobiles.
The outright ban is not needed, the Bush administration said, because daily limits on use of snowmobiles and new technologies can adequately protect the parks.
The Yellowstone Protection Act currently has 134 bipartisan co-sponsors.
"There is a reason that Park Rangers wear gas masks at the west entrance of Yellowstone. It's because they are subjected to a chemical assault," Holt said. "I ask you, is this any way to treat the rangers who work so hard to make sure that all Americans can enjoy their national parks? Is this any way to treat the park itself?"
Conservancy Buys Jewel of Apalachicola River
ALTAMONTE SPRINGS, Florida, March 6, 2003 (ENS) - The Nature Conservancy has purchased nearly 300 acres of native forestland bordered on two sides by Florida's Apalachicola River. This short, broad peninsula of bottomland hardwood forest in northern Liberty County juts into the river and is adjacent to Torreya State Park.
The Apalachicola River has the largest forested floodplain in Florida. The new parcel is home to as many as 60 tree species, such as tupelo, sycamore and winged elm. In addition, the rare one-toed amphium (Amphium pholeter) inhabits the rich floodplain soils.
The property is so important that the Florida Division of Recreation and Parks has been, "trying to acquire this land for half a century," according to Albert Gregory, bureau chief of park planning.
The property was purchased for $819,000 from Neal Land and Timber Company through their intermediary PDO Inc. In the 1930s, the Neal family donated the bulk of the land that became Torreya State Park. The park protects portions of steep ravines, upland pine and hardwood forests and river floodplains. The region is biologically unique to Florida and is inhabited by many species more commonly found in the Appalachian Mountains.
The Conservancy has worked with Neal Land and Timber Company and the Division of Recreation and Parks for several years to preserve this land.
"We are thrilled to put this incredible piece of land into permanent protection," added Vicki Tschinkel, state director of the Florida Chapter of The Nature Conservancy.
The Conservancy has focused on the Apalachicola River as a priority protection area because of the natural resources along the river and in its downstream estuary, Apalachicola Bay.
The Conservancy recently designated the Apalachicola River and adjoining portions of the Florida Panhandle as one of the top six hot spots of biological diversity in the United States.
Numerous rare and imperiled plant and animal species, such as the federally threatened Gulf sturgeon, occur both within the river and in the forested habitats of its floodplains, ravines and uplands.
The Conservancy plans to convey the property to the state for inclusion in Torreya State Park in the near future. Gregory said, "We are very pleased that this important tract will now be added to the holdings of the Division of Recreation and Parks, as it will help us to better manage the entire ecosystem encompassed by this unique Florida park."
ALL the people that envirowackos deem to be cultured enough to be people.
In general because our love of the national parks is threatening to their natural integrity. We need to come up with many more ways to enjoy them in as natural a state as possible. That's the idea behind them being parks in the first place; places where the natural resources of the area were so outstanding that they deserved strong preservation efforts.
Yes, I certainly do. See how many people you can find that think the establishment of our National Park system was a bad idea. And while you're at it, see if you can find some information of what Yellowstone was like before some of the more rampant examples of commercialism were eliminated.
You know that the establishment of the NPS system is a land grab and you support it . Now you are telling me you support the micto management of free peoples daily activities . How do you reconcile the 2 positions ?
There is a trade-off between preservation of natural areas and the activities of free people. This trade-off is evident in numerous areas of our lives. For example, fishing is a free activity, but most states require fishing licenses; certain species are protected and can't be caught; most other species have size limits below which they can't be kept and must be put back. I would consider these as "micro-management" of our daily activities, and yet I also understand and accept the wisdom behind them. Do you?
The question you asked was: How do you reconcile the two positions? A "yes" answer to that question is meaningless -- thus I didn't your question with a "yes". I hope that you're aren't inferring something I did not say.
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.