There has been a lot of fuss in some very small sectors about the 2006 draft edition of the National Park Service's Management Policies. I'm skimming through them right now, and I can't help but be amazed that our national government can actually function under the weight of its own instructional veribage. The comparison-edition of the draft, which includes stricken language and added language, runs to 286 pages. Even assuming that the average Park Superintendent can disregard 3/4 of the material as irrelevant to his own park's functioning, that's still 70-some pages of poorly-written bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo to keep loaded into your brain's RAM all day.
Anyway, as I come across interesting bits, I'm adding them below.
A lot of the text revisions really do make the text much more readable. 80 pages in, I haven't seen any actual policy change that would justify teeth-gnashing.
The revised definition of "exotic species" is much improved. It acknowledges that human activity is not the only way of introducing exotic species to a place. It also declares all organisms that are genetically modified by humans inherently "exotic." This seems eminently reasonable.
Many of the actual changes really are intended to uphold public enjoyment as a central goal in the parks. It has been accused that the Bush Administration wants to shred protection for park resources. These policies don't weaken any protections. What they do is require the protection of visitor enjoyment in addition to all the other protections.
I got about as far as Page 99 before getting pretty tired of natural resource management stuff. Sorry folks, but I'm a historical interp kind of guy, and I can only take so much wetland management policy.
It got interesting on Page 100. A lot of the fuss about park management is about snowmobiles in Yellowstone and aircraft over Grand Canyon. The changes effectively defang anti-noise prohibitions and punts such decisions down to the park management level, strongly implying that a big park ought to have space enough for occasionally noisy areas and always quiet areas, and it's down to management, surrounding communities, and other interested parties to figure out the specifics.
The draft barely touches cultural resources management.
The document changes discussion of "wilderness management" to "wilderness stewardship," which seems to me to be a proper re-wording.
Section 7.4.3 has significant changes, changing the goal of resource issue interpretation from proselyting for management decisions, to maintaining balance and demonstrating respect for differing opinions and values. If that change didn't come directly out of the Yellowstone snowmobile experience, I'd be very surprised.
Battle reenactments are typically forbidden in the parks. Previously, they were banned because they were said to be incompatible with the memorial character of those parks. That language has been removed and replaced with language stressing the danger of battle reenactments. Interesting.
Authenticity is stressed (8.2) as a valued characteristic of National Park Service properties. This is precisely what draws me to them.
Contrary to press reports, the hunting regulations are actually tightened up.
A lot of cosmetic changes were made. Negative phrases (unacceptable impact) were changed into stronger, more inclusive positive phrases (acceptable use).
Yeah, the press accounts were massively overblown.
Section 9.2 is Dennis Foster's playground. "In general, the preferred modes of transportation will be those that contribute to maximum visitor enjoyment of and minimum adverse impacts on park resources and values." He oughta like that. Oh, and this one: "... a development solution may be pursued if the project... will be financially and operationally sustainable." Grand Canyon management please take note.
Heh. That same section has a spelling correction, too.
I made it nearly 250 pages in before time and tedium compelled me to give up. My final conclusion? The draft Management Plan is hardly the attack on the NPS mission that some people say it is. It seems likely that attacks on the plan are based on more political than substantial issues.
Comments