By Jim Beers
Ever notice the vegetation in "our" National Parks? Here in the East, the vast majority of vegetation is grasses that are periodically mowed, and timber stands that are never cut. Sure, there is the exception, like "The Cornfield" at Antietam where a vicious battle was fought in a cornfield that is replanted each year, and the grain fields at Gettysburg through which Pickett and his men marched to the "copse of trees," and into history.
Out West, the average vegetation picture is different, but basically similar. Uncut tree stands, either overgrazed (by totally "protected" wildlife) or ungrazed (by prohibited domestic animals) grasslands, and (as with all other National Parks) an eclectic mix of plants that are either touted or condemned, as suits U.S. National Park budget purposes.
In and around all National Parks, the wild animal populations are a disgraceful mix of harmful predators (wolves, bears, cougars, coyotes, raccoons), that are unmanaged and bold due to pet-like treatment in the Park, and over-populations of grazing/browsing animals, that decimate park vegetation and decrease other wildlife, from songbirds to amphibians and reptiles, by destroying their habitat. None of these animals or plants is managed in any real sense by the AA (Arrogant Agency), known as the National Park Service. While the nation is well-populated by hunters who would pay to take prescribed numbers of the deer and elk, and trappers that would, likewise, pay to take the predators, in ways and places that would not endanger any visitors or undesignated wildlife, such common sense management and revenue generation is never spoken.
And, the National Park Service gets more lands, more people, and bigger budgets each year. Entrance fees (for lands "saved" with our tax money and employing people, likewise, paid with our taxes) do not supplement annual appropriations "enough." The lists of proposed National Parks is limited only by opportunity and imagination. This 'AA' is credited with the novel (and tyrannical) concept of their vested interest in surrounding private property, known as their "viewshed." As one headline in a national paper read last week, National Parks seek ways to raise funds.
All of these issues are, in one way or another, emerging in the other federal land managing agencies that, together with the Parks, control over 40 percent of the nation, and are increasing this share daily. The U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management are, increasingly, erasing from their policies and practices the management of renewable natural resources (wildlife, fish, trees, grass, water), and reducing uses of such resources by people (hunters, fishermen, trappers, ranchers, farmers, loggers, pet owners, campers, and visitors of all stripes). Along with "viewsheds," such unforeseen rural assaults as road closures, wilderness designations, critical habitats, forcible predator insertions, area closures, area permits, and "native ecosystem/invasive species" mysticism are replacing the written purposes in authorizing legislation, for which each area was authorized for acquisition by Congress. All of these 'AA's have come to believe that the parks, refuges, or forests are "their fiefdom."
Increasingly, we see billionaire landowners "partnering" (through their own scientists) with neighboring 'AA's to close down access, allow predators to decimate huntable wildlife species, stop fishery management of surrounding streams, and eliminate all grazing and timbering, to enhance the value of their estates (or dukedom or earldom, as the case may be) while eliminating rural towns, rural families, rural economies, rural lifestyles, and American freedoms and traditions, for all but the rich.
But, back to the "grass" and uncut woodlands on the National Parks. Does anyone believe that, when these battles were fought on the Park sites, that the vegetation, grass stands, or uncut woodlands looked anything like they do today? They were cutting trees for construction, cooking, and heating. They were burning slash (unused twigs and gnarly branches). Those folks were growing crops and grazing stock that were (pardon me) pooping all over the pastures and around the barns. They were growing (shhh) tobacco! They had horses, dirt roads, and manure piles. Picture that when you stand at the "copse of trees," and don't forget the smell. No, they didn't eat grass, and they cut down trees: they ate, slept, built, raised families, and died there, not in the urban enclaves we are increasingly forcing rural residents to move to. And, my point is?
My point is, that the National Park Service has been foisting off a caricature environment for years. Simultaneously, they condemn hunting, fishing, trapping, timber management, and grazing as evil practices. Urbanites, suburbanites, exurbanites, professionals, and other manners of unaffected citizens accept this hokum as "science," when, in fact, it is thinly-veiled environmental evangelism. All this while the National Parks whine for money, and the plant and animal communities become more bizarre each year. Bizarre doesn't have anything to do with "native" or "invasive" species, it has everything to do with the political, budget, and power agendas of these 'AA's, their "partners," and the politicians who feed them for their own purposes (re-election).
Why aren't logged (selectively, renewably, sustainably) woodlands found on National Parks, and why are they disappearing on the other AA's fiefdoms? Why aren't animal populations managed by hunting, to maintain diverse plant communities on National Parks, and why is this decreasing on the other AA's fiefdoms? Why aren't domestic animals allowed to graze under permits on National Parks, and why is this beneficial practice being eliminated on the other 'AA's fiefdoms? Why aren't fishing and trapping allowed on National Parks, and why are management programs for and activity levels for such activities not being maintained on other 'AA's fiefdoms? Why isn't all the revenue such activities would generate for "our" public lands, and the benefit to local communities from such activities considered, as all of these 'AA's cry on their bellies and pound their fists on the floor, for more of our tax dollars to further remove American lands from American use?
The answer, of course, is known to all. The agencies are "too big" and "too powerful" for anyone, including our elected officials, to rein in. All of the "friends" of the 'AA's know it. All of the clubs, societies, councils, institutes, unlimiteds, federations, and other assorted ne'er-do-wells not only know it, they smile as they read this. All of the politicians on both sides of the "divide" (pro-'AA' or anti-'AA') know this all too well.
Well, the "answer" is wrong! The answer is divestiture. Most (the majority) of the lands controlled by these 'AA's would be better maintained (biologically, culturally, and economically) if they were transferred to state or private ownership, with conditions that assure the maintenance of open space, managed woodlands, or natural wetland, on which basis, the federal government purchased or set aside the land.
Think of the initial revenue from the sale of the land. Think of the annual savings from all the grandiose requirements dreamed up annually by 'AA's. Think of the roads and access reopened, and kept open. Think of the economic benefit to local communities. Think of the business and recreational opportunities provided to outdoor recreation-starved urbanites. Think of state and local elected officials, once again, controlling our communities, and lifestyles. Think of the possible rural "style-of-living" we could once more establish, without the federal 800-pound gorilla overshadowing everything we do, or want to do.
I plan to write more on divestiture, but for now, just think about a percent target. Say, 20 percent divested from each agency, in each state, by 2008. Think about your Governor having a say in what lands are to be divested. Think about the message of a long-forgotten fact (that the agencies work for the politicians we elect) this would send to an increasingly out-of-control bureaucracy. For now, just think about it.
Jim Beers is a retired Refuge Manager, Special Agent, & Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
No comments:
Post a Comment