| OCR Text |
Show WASATCH national signficance, suitability (appro- priateness), feasibility (efficient management), and whether there is any management entity other than the Park Service that can better protect, manage and make the site accessible to. the American public. he problem, Pritchard says, isn’t the lack of criteria, but rather that Congress sometimes ignores the criteria. Freemyer agress, but takes it a step further. “The problem is there are criteria and we've never followed them,” he says. “There is everything imaginable in the park system. There are historical, cultural and natural areas, We have railroad museums, The Park Service manages highways between Washington and Baltimore. We need to decide what we have and what we don’t want — to make it clear and more defined.” Hansen, in an effort to make his point, told his constituents that Congress unanimously supports finding some way to control the growth and make cutbacks in the national park system. At issue, however, are two failed bills Reps. Bruce Vento, D-Minn., and Joel Hefley, R-Colo. and whether either bill reflects unanimity. Hefley first pushed HR1508, which indeed would have set up a park closure commission. But that bill failed, prompting Vento, then chair- Hansen Aide Allen Freemyer “Congress needs to make a decision as to what is nationally significant and what should be included (in the park system). A lot of historical sites are not so historical.” man of the parks subcommittee, to fashion a compromise bill, HR4476, which Hansen's staff helped draft and which NPCA favored. That bill would have allowed the Secretary of the Interior to recommend areas for study, The point of departure between Hansen and NPCA, however, is over Hansen's interpretation of the bill. Freemyer says the bill went beyond the scope of a study, letting the Park Service recommendations for closure make Pritchard, thinks it’s misleading to emphasize the closing aspect of the bill when it directed the secretary to look at alternative management for some parks areas for study as and recommend potential new units. Also, by saying there was unanimous support, Hansen implied that support came from the Senate as well, Pritchard said. In fact, the bill passed the House, but didn’t make it to the Senate. Pritchard agrees that reviewing the parks isn’t such a bad idea, but he warns against overlooking alternative solutions. Perhaps some could be “mothballed,” he says, borrowing a term familiar to Hansen. “We do that with military bases and it is a common strategy done by some state agencies.” Perhaps it’s cheap- this is the MOUNTAIN TIMES place To by John Helton restore the natura\ balance... | propose reintroducing wolves into more of Our Notional Parks ! TohyO95 er to set some areas aside, but to know they'll be available in the future, he says. Another solution might be to cut the hours at parks. “They don’t have to be open 24 hours a day,” he says. USA Today's editorial gave Hansen the “penny-wise” award of the month, but said the answer is in higher user fees, cautious more concession income and restructuring, “Hansen’s letter may encourage some to believe that these difficulties legitimize a growing campaign to increase commercial development of the parks and adjacent wilderness,” the Dec. 23 editorial says. while Hansen and _ his. staft And adamantly proclaim their support of the parks, his letter has garnered some antienvironmental support. Ron Arnold, executive vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, offered an Opposing view in USA Today. “The parks drown in red ink because revenue from wise resource use, such as safe mining, has vanished,” he says. NPCA’s Kathy Westra says that’s the kind of thinking her organization fears. “Ron Arnold’s goal is to destroy the envisays. ronmental movement,” she Certainly, in his editorial, Arnold blames “big-money environmental groups.” He specifically points to the Wilderness Society for bringing lawsuits to close roads and _ visitor facilities. And he blames NPCA for urging confiscation of private property. PCA, a nonprofit organization with 475,000 members nationwide, calls Arnold’s notion “extreme fantasy.” It’s important to balance the mandates for public use and enjoyment with those of preservation, Pritchard says. “I challenge anyone to find a way to preserve the parks unimpaired if we follow the suggestion of opening them to mining, logging and other resource-consumptive activities,” he says. PAGE Admittedly, Hansen distances himself from extremist groups, but still insists that people can expect a better return on their tax dollars. It would take more than 30 years to bring current a construction backlog of $6 billion, he says. NPCA has ae however, that may be the result. On a broad level, the nation has been witnessing$ a states rights move8 consistently ment opposed unnecessary Con struction in parks, and says that’s one area of “pork” that could be cut Hansen also mentioned congressionally authorized land acquisition, which is backlogged by up to $2 billion and will take 25 years to complete. That oupled shortfall, with draws nation’s parks. headway on the a “We these annual grim are budgetary picture unable shortages and for the to wrest control from the federal government, but local entities have balked at the funding challenges that would present. Whether other federal or local groups could manage wild card in the puzzle The question is whether be assessed in the same » way vases, whether converting parks is parks can as military their man- to make in fact we will fall further behind as our parks deteriorate even further,” says Hansen But NPCA fears that once the ball gets rolling toward closure, no new areas will be considered for park protection. The Park Service is responsible for 368 units, but only 54 of them are designated national parks. If closure is the goal, treasures such as Hell's Canyon National Recreation Area in northeast Oregon could suffer. Hell’s Canyon is on a list for expansion and redesignation. “It ought to be included,” says Westra of NPCA. The proposal is to expand the protected area to include some land now under control of the Bureau of Land Management. Hansen's proposal wouldn't preclude new parks from coming into the But it would says Freemyer. system, require that they meet strict criteria. Those that don’t make it could be managed by other entities, Hansen believes. “This is not an unfunded mandate,” says Freemyer. “We find crazy ways to manage these areas. If it makes sense, it could go back to the Forest Service. Or a historical society might be able to man- 7 age and run it. We're not talking about throwing a gate across these parks and keeping the public out.” Paul Pritchard - “Comparing parks to military bases, | think, is a fal- lacious assumption. Military bases were established based upon current national defense posture and policy, while parks are a symbol of American Character.” dates would mean destroying their potential. “Comparing parks to military bases, I think, is a fallacious assumption,” Pritchard says. “Military bases were established based upon current national defense posture and policy while parks are symbols of the American character.” In other words, parks are not to the economy what bases are to the national defense. “One changes and one doesn't,” says Pritchard. “One becomes obsolete and one evolves.” At least that’s the way it used to be. @ |
