Press Statement : Jerry Rogers Regarding Managment Policies

Welcome!

My name is Jerry Rogers. i am a member of the executive council of the coalition of national park service retirees … at the national park service, i was honored to be the associate director for cultural resources from 1983 THROUGH 1994.

i am here today to echo Bill’s very serious concerns. no one rewrites 195 pages of national park service rules and circulates them in the upper echelons of the interior department without the blessing of their “higher ups.”

and while the combined effect of all the proposed changes is shocking … the philosophy behind them is not something new … this is the philosophy that has been guiding – if that is the right word -- the interior department mismanagement and neglect of national parks for the last five years. the only difference now is that they have committed their “game plan” to paper.

My view of this situation is as follows:

This radical rewrite stands nearly 100 years of national park stewardship on its head. Under these changes, the sights, sounds, and smells of motorized vehicles would dominate previously quiet parks. No longer would such impacts damage only Yellowstone and a handful of other parks.

These rule changes would unleash on our national parks an army of off-road vehicles, dirt bikes, jet skis, powerboats, dune buggies and the like. No seashore, reservoir, forest area, desert patch, OR ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE would be immune from this attack. NO PLACE THAT IS LITERALLY SACRED, SUCH AS CANYON DE CHELLY’S SPIDER ROCK AND GLEN CANYON’S RAINBOW BRIDGE ARE TO THE NAVAJO PEOPLE; AND NO PLACE THAT IS FIGURATIVELY SACRED, SUCH AS ANTIETAM’S BLOODY BATTLEFIELD IS TO ME, WOULD BE SAFE. the result would be devastating: the end of national parks as the last great places where AmericanS cherish the outdoors AND UNDERSTAND WHO WE ARE AS A PEOPLE AND HOW WE CAME TO BE WHAT WE ARE TODAY.

Now … I recognize that may sound quite dire, but it is the reality of what these rule changes would mean.

I have been asked to walk through the Key points of the proposed NPS management practice changes …

I would summarize five of the major areas of concern as follow:

Concern number 1 is that the new rules would Abandon the primary mission of the NPS. For almost 90 years, preservation of the Parks has been clearly established as the NPS’ primary mission. The NPS and the National Park System were created by Congress in 1916. Congress at that time established that the – quote - “fundamental purpose” – unquote - of the Park System is – quote - “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife 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.” –unquote

Nonetheless, the proposed changes to NPS management recognize a far more limited mission, one which would recognize preservation as an objective only to the extent of avoiding any “impairment” of the Park System’s resources and values. “Impairment” would be defined as referring only to permanent and irreversible damage.

Under this new approach, parks could be presumed to be open for exploitation for purposes such as logging, mining and oil & gas exploration. Entire species of animals could be extirpated from a specific park as long as they could possibly be reintroduced at some future point.

A second major concern: the rules would expose national parks to extensive new damage. Currently, the managers of national parks are charged with stepping in immediately to protect the parks from any and all real or potential threats – both internal and external. Under the proposed rules, park managers could only take protective steps when “impairment” can be documented and, even then, most likely only if from internal sources. It is ludicrous to require a superintendent to wait to take action on resource degradation until ‘irreversible’ damage can be documented. The old aphorism about closing the barn door after the horse gets out comes to mind.

A third major concern: the rules would eliminate virtually all limits on motorized access to national parks, both on and off roads and trails. The Interior Department rewrite of the NPS management rules consistently eliminates such phrases in relation to national parks as “classrooms of our heritage,” “legacy we leave to future generations,” and “warrant the highest standard of protection.” Instead, the parks are newly described in a variety of ways consistent with the phrase “repositories of outstanding recreation opportunities”.

This shift in focus would open such places as Cape Cod National Seashore to Jet Skis and other noisy and disruptive motorized watercraft. Skiers on the rugged and remote Tioga Trail in Grand Teton National Park would be shoved aside by snowmobilers who would be able to rip up the trail for the first time ever. VISITORS CONTEMPLATING THE MYSTERIES OF CHACO WOULD DO SO TO THE BUZZ OF DIRT BIKES.

Let’s move on to looking at … a fourth major concern: the rules would subordinate national parks to the agendas of individual cities and states. The obligation of the National Park Service to serve all Americans would be undercut by the substitution of words that subordinate the broad national interest to narrow local interests. Every reference to NPS "collaboration" with cities and towns near parks has been changed to "cooperation." In this case, "cooperation" would mean joint operation of parks with park neighbors.

This would negate the superintendents’ abilities to represent the broad interests of the people of the United States as a whole when those interests do not match narrow local interests, such as gateway communities that may be intent on a Disneyland-like commercialization of “their” national park. Additionally, NPS would be required to obtain the concurrence of state agencies in several instances where the NPS now has clear jurisdiction to act on behalf of all U.S. citizens.

Finally .. the fifth area of concern i will highlight today is one that relates very directly to my work at nps: the draft rules would eliminate the scientific underpinning of national park management. The entire draft has a decidedly anti-intellectual, anti-science tone. The drafters’ hostility toward sound science is demonstrated by the elimination of all references to "evolution" or "evolutionary processes."

In several instances, the drafters eliminate “scholarly analysis” as a prerequisite for gathering the information necessary for park managers to make informed, sound decisions. The rewrite also eliminates the current requirement that there should be the use of “technologies” – in other words science – that is used to protect the parks, such as the current research going on at the Grand Canyon to determine the extent of needed cutbacks on noise pollution from helicopters and other low-altitude overflights.

taken on balance, this is a full-scale attack on america’s national parks – and it is one, i fear, that the our parks, national battlefields, national monuments and other sites would not survive in any recognizable shape. in short, a national tragedy – fortunateLy, it is one that is 100 percent preventable.

I thank you for your attention … and look forward to fielding your questions.