Search:           


Wish You Weren’t Here

This summer millions of people will visit our national parks, expecting to hear—quiet. Are they ever in for a rude awakening.
Audubon    July/Aug. 2007

“More traffic inherently causes more disturbance because Yellowstone’s wildlife need these specific habitats as they struggle to survive the park’s winters,” warns Rick Smith, the park’s former acting superintendent. “Science has been underscoring this important fact in Yellowstone for well over a decade. It’s a travesty that the administration is failing to tell the American public that the professionals say that we need to protect the animals residing in one of the world’s great wildlife sanctuaries.”

On March 26, 2007, seven of the eight living former Park Service directors sent a letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, urging reduction of snowmobile traffic in Yellowstone and expressing “alarm” over his proposal to increase it. The one missing signature was that of Fran Mainella, who resigned in July 2006 and was constrained for a year by ethics rules.


“Parks are for people,” as the old bromide proclaims—but not for people who disrupt ecosystems and soundscapes. The “dual mandate” you hear so much about, most often from motorheads and bureaucrats they’ve frightened, does not exist. Those who believe otherwise don’t understand our language. “Dual mandate” is all you need utter to jump-start an interview with the National Parks Conservation Association’s Don Barger. First he will take a deep breath and gather his composure. Then he will say in his soft southern accent, as he said to me: “I hate that term. The Park Service’s organic act was this nation’s first commitment to sustainability. We were right in the middle of the industrial revolution. German zeppelins were bombing Paris. It was the first time we said out loud that there are places so special that they need to belong to everybody and last forever. I can rephrase the organic act without changing its meaning so it reads: ‘The purpose of the national park system is to provide this and future generations with the enjoyment of unimpaired natural resources.’ ”

Barger has it exactly right. When the Park Service provides enjoyment to most air-flight tourists and all thrill-craft operators, it impairs natural resources. When it impairs these resources, it fails to provide the kind of enjoyment required by law.

On June 19, 2006, Interior Secretary Kempthorne issued the following proclamation: “When there is a conflict between conserving resources unimpaired for future generations and the use of those resources, conservation will be predominant.” If he didn’t have his fingers crossed, now would be a good time to start proving it.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

To learn more about the Park Service’s program to restore natural soundscapes, click here. The FAA Reauthorization Act will likely have language that requires air-tour operators to report flights and routes over national parks. Ask your legislators not to let that language get weakened or deleted.




Top

Page:   << Previous    1    2    3    4      
Ted Williams Archive
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
Books
Blog
Christianity & the Environment
Climate Change
Global Warming Skeptics
The Web of Life
Managing Our Impact
Caring for our Communities
The Far-Right
Ted Williams Archive