THAT CAT IN THAT BAG
Quick neighbors! What does the Catholic Church, the National Park Service and the US Forest Service have in common?
No, it's not a penchant for odd hats; rather it is a penchant for self destructive secrecy.
You will remember that the Archdiocese of Boston, Cardinal Law commanding, decided that the evil secret of pedophile priests would be kept hidden, the priests "counseled" and "reassigned" and hush money paid to the victims, while the "reassigned" priests were allowed to prey on new, unsuspecting `congregations.
The local newspaper THE BOSTON GLOBE successfully broke the story in the face of threats of ruinous lawsuits from the archdiocese. In the end, the archdiocese had the worst of all worlds; they were faced with scorn, ridicule, and contempt, as well as being forced to pay millions of dollars in compensation for avoidance of the truth.
In the case of the National Park Service, we have yet another case of agency secrecy and the whistle blower who broke it. Readers of issue # 243 will recall the saga of Yellowstone seasonal ranger Bob "action" Jackson. Jackson, a 30 season veteran, blew the whistle on the long standing hunting outfitters' practice of baiting elk with salt, luring elk out of the park, and coincidentally, attracting grizzlies to the resulting elk carcass. This often led to confrontations and the death of grizzlies, of which there is no surplus.
As is always the case in such matters, Jackson's superiors were conducting "sensitive, high level talks" with their opposite numbers in the Wyoming state fish & game and US forest service in an effort to solve the problem. As these talks were beyond the ken of mere mortals, let alone a "seasonal", secrecy had to be strictly enforced, and Jackson was forced to sign a gag order saying he would not talk to reporters. YELL administration felt he had violated this order and decided that his services would no longer be needed--ever.
PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility) decided to take up his case, and as a result of the bureaucratic mania for secrecy, Ranger Jackson is now a tourist attraction.
Newspapers from around the world decided to send reporters to find out more about the heroic lone ranger "in the most remote spot in the lower 48" who was not only battling evil poachers but also his own cowardly agency which didn't want to offend the congressional delegation of the most reactionary state north of the Mason-Dixon line and south of Alaska.
The writer Frank Clifford gave Jackson a whole chapter in his new book on the Rocky Mountain West, THE BACKBONE OF THE WORLD. On the whole, it was an admiring portrait (though Clifford was somewhat nonplussed with Jackson's thorofare ranger station which, over the years, has grown in civilization, to include a wine cellar.)
My own interview with Jackson convinced me that he would be a hard man to supervise, did not need an ego transplant in the near future---and was totally dedicated to preserving what Yellowstone was all about.
Due to the negative publicity and the intervention of PEER, YELL had to reinstate Jackson as a back country ranger, remove adverse material from his personnel file and most hilariously, schedule training on First Amendment Free speech rights for all its management. (One of the quirky beliefs dearly held by land use agency managers is that the lower graded employees lose all their civil rights when they accept employment with the agency, a belief fortunately not shared by the Supreme Court).
In spite of Jackson and the required free speech training, there seems to be some residual fear of persecution on the part of some of the rangers regarding the perennial issue of snowmobile use in YELL.
The June 10 issue of HIGH COUNTRY NEWS published a letter from Ray Sikorski, an employee of one of the YELL park concessions.
Dear HCN
Living in Yellowstone National Park, I wanted to get a first-hand opinion on the snowmobile debate. I'd read reports from the EPA, the snowmobile industry, experts on flora and fauna and everything else, but I hadn't heard the voice that I felt knew the most: the park rangers.
So I asked some park rangers how they felt, and, to my shock, they refused to tell me, because as government employees they're forbidden to publicly express their opinions.
This left me utterly dumbfounded. How can we decide this issue without the input of the park rangers? These are the people who are on the front lines of the snowmobile debate, who put up with the noise, suck in the fumes , and whose eyes tear up from the smog. They're the ones who chase after snowmobilers who speed and go off-trail, and they know first hand the stresses snowmobiles put on wildlife. Yet they're not allowed to give their opinion.
Is this really considered democracy? I believe that if the snowmobile ban does not pass, it is for one reason: That park rangers have been bound and gagged. It should be an embarrassment to the Park Service, the federal government, and the freedoms we value as Americans that such a policy is upheld.
And perhaps it's not my place, as an employee of a concessioner and not the Park Service, but I'll say it anyway: Park rangers should speak. If they know in their hearts what is right they should speak what is in their hearts. As Gandhi said, "When a law fosters untruth, it becomes a duty to disobey it."
The role of park rangers is to be good stewards for the parks; if they are fired for attempting to be good stewards, the Park Service will simply be advertising its hypocrisy."
Ray Sikorski, Mammoth Station Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming
Well put, Ray! May you live long and prosper in Yellowstone.
Now, neighbors, it is entirely possible that Ray was being overly pessimistic, that the Yellowstone rangers were not being suppressed by management, but rather that they were victims of that most pernicious self inflicted wound, paranoid self-censorship. It is entirely possible that YELL management does not care a fig about what the lower minions say to the press. "Let a hundred flowers bloom" as Mao Tse Tung used to say. It is quite possible that the YELL rangers were only imagining the possibility of retribution should any of them speak out on the subject of snowmobiles.
However, water will always find the leak in any bucket and it is always disastrous from a public affairs point of view to assume you can make a leak proof bucket from the hides of your staff. The enterprising investigative reporter always gets to the story.
Not even our brother agency, the US Forest Service, whose press control is the envy of every spin doctor and information manager in government. can entirely control the flow of information by squelching employees.
You will remember that in a recent issue of THUNDERBEAR, The Christian Bureaucrat and spouse took a short vacation to the Red Rocks country around Sedona, Arizona. (That's the scenery that has dibs on space in every issue of ARIZONA HIGHWAYS.) It is world class beautiful and was studied as a possible addition to the national park system.
(The threat of national park status is often used to force a recalcitrant multiple use management agency such as the Forest Service or the BLM to come up with an environmental management plan that is slightly more protective than the usual Rape & Scrape enabling act demanded by the multiple abuse "clients" of these agencies.) This was the case in the Red Rocks country. the national park or monument idea was shelved, but a wilderness area was established and other restrictions imposed, but huntin', rock houndin', four-wheelin' and other wholesome family value recreational endeavors were allowed in certain parts of the Coconino National Forest, as well as enough grazin' an' loggin' to assure somebody that they were rugged (albeit subsidized) Sons of the Old West.
All in all, it was not a bad compromise. Even the Sierra Club could live with it.
Then the Forest Service decided to make some money off the sunsets.
You see, there is a strong belief on the part of the "Wise Use" advocates that we "recreationists" just aren't pulling our share of the Multiple Use wagon. They, after all, have to put up with all those pesky environmental rules (or go to the trouble of finding a way around them), while we free spirits simply sauntered through the "resource" happy as pinon jays, without a care in the world, simply enjoying nature, lookin' at sunsets unmindful, that "other folks" (much more serious, godfearin', hardworkin', "g" droppin' folk) had to raise families, meet payrolls, and so on.
According to the "wise use" folk, they was just plumb tired a' subsidizin' us lollygaggin' city slickers, so we "recrationists" were goin' have to pay our fair share! Yessiree bob!
Now neighbors,exactly what is "fair" is sort of hard to quantify as the rest of the Multiple Use wagon is a subsidized government boondoggle and always has been. As is increasingly well known, public land grazing and logging contribute only about 4% of the nation's food, fiber, and lumber. Even that 4% would be economically impossible without socialistic subsidies laid on by (usually) reactionary right wing Western congressional delegations. Mining, the fourth horseman of Multiple Abuse apocalypse, is a net loss due to the environmental degradation caused by public lands mining. We are still literally picking up the pieces from the Mining Act of 1872.
So, what's this about the Forest Service selling sunsets?
Well, you see the Forest Service has a problem. They would like to make some extra money for recreational "improvements" (Though like most land management agencies, they are much better at Junior ranger programs than junior capitalist programs). No matter! The Forest Service wanted to raise money from recreational users. But how? Should the Forest Service institute entrance fees? That would be difficult. The national forests are generally accessed by state or county roads that usually go some place else after meandering through the national forests. The National Parks, on the other hand, usually have their own roads as they are a destination. This means that the national parks can set up an entrance station and charge money (sometimes REAL money, like the $20 fee at Zion.)
After you had paid your NPS fee, you could journey on the NPS road, look at the NPS rocks and sunsets, learn about the purpose of the park at the NPS visitor" center, and most important of all, for many, visit the NPS toilet. Generally speaking, women do not like to use a pit toilet and are willing to pay a price for a flush toilet and thus had no objection to an entrance fee.
Not so the national forests. The state, county or federal road that wound through the national forests was traveled by salesmen, commuters, poachers, tourists, loggers, and a host of people willing to take a sworn oath that they were NOT enjoying nature as they drove through the national forest if they had to pay a fee. It would therefore be impossible to put an entrance station at the entrance to every multiple use national forest, 'cause everyone is "just passing through". Even the clarion call of a forest service visitor center with rest rooms has more diplomatic pitfalls than the Middle East peace process. You cannot tell a taxpayer that no, you can't use the rest room until you pay Smokey Bear ten dollars.
So now that our fellow multiple abusers in industry feel that the recreation users must pay, how do you extract the ten spot? One way to do it is to institute something called a "Forest Pass" (good for a very limited amount of time, mind you.) You would get this pass at a generally inconvenient location, often involving backtracking, and hang it from your rear view mirror. Then and only then could you pull into a trail head parking lot and take a hike without worrying about getting a ticket.
This idea had such potential that merely parking on the shoulder of the road was marketed by the Forest Service, including the famous case of a two mile long road shoulder near Sedona where both locals and tourists parked daily to watch the spectacular sunset glow on the buttes and mesas.
This is all part of something called a "fee demonstration" in which "much needed" funds are acquired from "recreationist" who are "using" the forests". Now neighbors, I realize that somewhere, somehow there are tourists with four stomachs who may be eating the grass and forbs, but I haven't met any. Yes, I am aware that I am "using" the trail and that vibram boots do tear it up those newly popular ski pole type walking sticks don't help either, but how many of me equals a clearcut?
People, (at least some people) got upset with "Fee demonstration". As noted, the NPS provides a glossy, multi-colored brochure and map of the park and trails, a smiling ranger to answer questions, exhibits, even a short film, and YES! that all important flush toilet! Tangible returns on your investment. To the uninformed taxpayer, the Forest Pass seemed very much like a mafia protection racket ("Give us ten bucks and we'll leave you alone.) Others objected on Throreauvian grounds that they were asked to have a pass to walk in the woods, God's woods, everybodys' woods and experience Nature.
Still others objected on populist grounds that being forced to pay a daily use fee discriminated against the poor, preventing them from using their national forests; not at all what Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot had envisioned.
Pshaw! said the Forest Service. Stuff and nonsense! The Forest Service was preparing studies that proved that the poor of the United States were not impacted by Forest Service user fees as the national forests were used primarily by white middle class folk who often arrived by plane and rented a car to visit the national forests and could well afford a "reasonable" fee for using the forests.
Now neighbors, we must digress a bit here and study "studies" in the 21st century United States.
You see, in addition to alledgely contributing to the advancement of human knowledge, "studies" are a useful tool in suppressing debate.
The phrase "studies show that..." is a standard argument-ender in America. "Studies show that...." is the modern equivalent of "God says...." or "Scripture tells us ...." or "The Holy Koran says...".
Upon hearing the fateful phrase "Studies show that...." you are supposed to say "Gee whilikers"! I didn't know that!" , roll over and play dead.
At best, "Studies" are a form of argumentation between scientists, at worst, "Studies" are a form of lying, as in "Lies, damn lies, and "Studies".
In reality, upon hearing "Studies show that...." you should immediately ask
- Who paid for the "study"? (The A # 1 question, neighbors!)
- What was the purpose of the "study" (both the stated and the real one)
- What was the date of the "study"?
- Who did the "study" and what is their background and expertise?
- Was it peer reviewed? Did the loyal opposition have any questions as to methodology or results? (This is one case where the petty jealousies and back stabbing nature of the Academic community can be put to good use in the Search for Truth!)
Now the person who uses the "Studies show that.." ploy on you may bluster that he couldn't possibly remember all that detail, but you should point out that if he/she wants to use "Studies show that...as a cheap debate ender, then he/she better have the footnotes in order or you won't buy the argument and certainly won't roll over and play dead.
Now then, having digressed for a study of "studies", we shall return to the US Forest Service "Study".
The Forest Service's position on the matter of user fee was basically that user fees did not discriminate against the poor as the poor did not significantly utilize national forests. As this is something of a circular argument it requires some explaining.
There is a belief among many people, not just land managers that the nation's poor are primarily Minority Group Members (MGM's) These MGM's are concentrated in the "Inner Cities" (Great code word, that!) and are far removed from federal public lands. Aside from distance, these MGM's are so strapped at simply making ends meet that they are unable to come up with the cash to pay for transportation to the various federal public lands, even if they had the interest, which they don't. So there!
It follows logically that since the White bourgeoisie (you and I) could afford a plane ticket and the cost of renting a car, that we should be able to pay increased "user fees". (Nay! feel morally obligated to pay that fee!)
Now, neighbors, there are always those who don't believe what government employees tell them.
The Forest Service's answer to that recalcitrance was, of course, a study proving that "User fees" do not exclude the poor.
The study, "Do User Fees Exclude Low-income People From Resource based Recreation" was co -authored by one of the Forest Service's social scientists Dr. Thomas More of the Forest Service's prestigious Northeast Research Station.
Unfortunately, for the Forest Service, according to the study, it turned out that User fees DO exclude the poor!
I called up Thomas More and told him I was a reporter for THUNDERBEAR and that I wanted to interview him on the subject of his study.
Alas! this was not to be. The Forest Service had told More to shut the hell up. (Well, not in those words, but they had told Dr. More not to talk to reporters.) Apparently, Dr. More had reached conclusions that were not in line with those expected by the Forest Service.
The eponomously named More was well aware that his historical antecedent Sir Thomas More (1478-1535) had been beheaded for reaching conclusions at odds with that of his employer, King Henry VIII. Understandably, the modern More did not wish to share a similar economic fate, so no interview. I understood perfectly.
Dr. More did have a co-author, Professor Thomas Stevens of the Department of Resource Economics at the University of Massachusetts, so I called him up.
Professor Stevens was rarin' to talk as he was beyond the clutches of US Forest Service, and moreover, had a bone to pick with the Service as he felt it had challenged intellectual freedom in suppressing Dr. More and had challenged their methodology in reaching the conclusions that they did.
It seems that the bulk of the Poor folk were not MGM's living in the "Inner Cities", but (gulp!) White folks like you and I. Moreover, they primarily live in rural or small town areas in what Lyndon Johnson called "America's Pockets of Poverty. That is, Appalachia (up to and including Maine) The Ozarks, Northern New Mexico as well as much of the Rocky Mountain West, the Southwest, and certain rural areas in the Pacific Northwest
These "pockets of poverty" are also where the majority of public lands (NPS, BLM, and Forest Service) are located.
America being America, even the poor usually have access to an automobile (One autoless chap was famously denied unemployment compensation in Southern California on the grounds that since he didn't own a car, he couldn't be seriously looking for work!) They are able to pool money for gas at least some of the time. This puts them within day use or weekend range of public recreational lands.
Would "User fees" influence whether or not the poor (pardon me, low income) would use public lands?
You bet! According to studies cited by More and Stevens, about one third of "visitors" to a Southwestern national forest beach area had altered their plans in response to a fee program. Of these, 62% visited the area less often, and over 50% chose to visit free sites within the forest.
(Aha! You say, these damn liberals are playing fast and lose with statistics! If you read closely, only ONE-THIRD had any complaints! TWO THIRDS of the respondents had no problem with the "User fees"; probably even enjoyed paying them!)
Not necessarily, according to More & Stevens.
You see, you are interviewing only those who actually show up at the fee area, you are not interviewing those who have heard about the fee, decide they can't afford it, and understandably see no reason to show up.
More & Stevens cleverly liken such sampling as that of " a movie theater owner who charged $35 per ticket. A survey of the few people who came might very well reveal that they were satisfied and supported the fee."
More & Stevens decided that pricing policy "should be based on studies of the general population rather than solely relying on on-site "customer" surveys."
More & Stevens did just that, surveying a random sampling of residents in Vermont and New Hampshire, asking questions about whether an increase and what degree of increase in fees would affect participation in public lands recreation.
The results show that "user fees" did indeed discriminate against "low income" users.
However, the results were not an earth-shaking victory for Socialism, neighbors. This is America, not Scandinavia, We are still Puritans. Poor people continue to vote Republican in the Rocky Mountain West (bless their hearts!) More & Stevens found "broad based attitudinal support for fees" even among the poor. (Apparently, even if they couldn't afford it, the attitude, was that somehow they should be in favor--ed), but that "Low income people were far more likely to believe that all taxpayers should be responsible for financing public lands" (A Scandinavian concept: We are the country; all in it together--ed)
However, low income is a real problem in America and of course affects "discretionary" recreational activities. More & Stevens point out that the "Golden Age" of US income equality occurred in the '50's and 60's, peaking in 1968. Today, half the households in the US have incomes below $38,000, with 85% of the nation's financial wealth controlled by 10% of the population.
(Indeed, your kindly editor has often observed that he and his mates in the National Park Service were usually only two paychecks from poverty, buoyed only by the knowledge of the permanence of federal employment. Often, for many an NPS family man, a blown knee or broken ankle would mean the loss of counted-upon Fire season overtime and hazardous duty pay; the lack of which would tumble the family from comfortable middle class life to a more spartan food stamp existence, assuaged only by the fact that Discretionary recreational activities lay right outside the door--ed)
More & Stevens address the possibility of eliminating the economic bias against the low income recreationists by discussing the possibility of a "free day" for the low income or the possibility of the low income person doing gratis work for the park in return for recreation (I recall Abe Lincoln had famously negative feelings about that solution--ed)
Moon & Stevens point out that such ideas "tend to underestimate how complicated life can get for many low income people...many working class families have both limited leisure time and inflexible schedules, often working two jobs, with spouses on different shifts in different jobs, limiting the opportunity of taking advantage of a "free day" or providing "voluntary" labor.
So, according to More & Stevens, there seems to be no getting around it: User fees discriminate against public lands recreationists.
So how come the Forest Service decided to forbid Thomas More from talking about his study?
Well, I don't know. Like I say, there appeared to be very little that is revolutionary or incendiary in the findings in the study itself.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the cause of the Forest Service's anxiety may be found in the concluding statement on User fees
"If low-income people are in fact excluded from public parks and recreation areas, then serious policy questions are raised about the very purpose of public recreation....However, when agencies begin to act like entrepreneurs seeking self-funding through fees, and low -income people are excluded, the public purpose--the very reason for public ownership is defeated.
Why do we have public beaches, hiking trails or campgrounds? For these resources to be legitimately in the public sector , they must be fulfilling a public need; a clear sense of public mission and purpose...Many see fees only in terms of cash flows--dollars taken in versus operating costs....Ultimately, however, a strong sense of mission and purpose are fundamental to the successful management of public parks and recreation. Our results suggest that fees undercut this mission: They are a major step in the gentrification of recreation resources. When the parks are reserved for the comfortably well-off, will they continue to be publicly necessary?"
Well now, neighbors! To paraphrase Maxwell Smart "These two guys really know how to hurt a program!"
I can see why the Forest Service was ticked off! They had obviously paid for a study that would enthusiastically endorse their "User fee" program. Instead they got a ringing broadside worthy of Tom Paine! Yup! If I were a Forest Service bureaucrat, particularly one who apparently thought the staff left their constitutional rights at the front door, I'd go after that Forest Service 'ologist.
It is difficult to see why the Forest Service insists on embarrassing itself by muzzling Dr. More. The More-Stevens study has been published ("Do User Fees Exclude Low-Income People from Resource-Based Recreation?" Journal of Leisure Research, 2000, Vol 32, #3, pp 341-357). Short of sending Forest Service staffers around to university libraries to surrepituously tear the offending article out of the journals, it appears that the cat is out of the bag.
I reckon that this being America, Dr. More has retained legal council, if not PEER, then someone else. Eventually, if not presently, Dr. More will be allowed to chew the fat on any subject he so desires.
So why do prestigious organizations like the Catholic Church, the National Park Service and the US Forest Service embarrass themselves (and often spend money needlessly) by insisting on secrecy? Not only shooting themselves in the foot, but constantly reloading?
I suspect that it is the old "If nobody talks about a problem, then its not a problem." Perhaps in time the problem will somehow solve itself (The Catholic Church has the advantage of Divine Guidance, a service not offered to the NPS or the USFS)
To be sure, there will be rumors about a "problem", but the "authorities" will state that they are "studying" the issue, but it is one of such complexity that the peasantry cannot hope to grasp even the fringes of the issues at hand, and that it requires the utmost, careful (and secret) deliberations of minds far wiser and more experienced than your own. In due time, decisions will be made and a solution found. In the meantime, if you are a True Friend of the Park, Forest, Church, or Nation, you will keep your baseless assumptions to yourself and let your betters do your thinking for you.
Well, why not? Henry Kissinger and Robert McNamara were able to keep a war going for nearly ten years using a lack of transparency based on ignorance. (Later,MaNamara even wrote a book about it, saying that he really didn't have a clue: Sorry, guys!)
So perhaps the Catholic Church, the National Park Service and the US Forest Service should simply tell the truth, shame the devil and let everyone talk. It might be messy in the short run, but advantageous in the long run.
MISTY & MOSBY
According to military tacticians, cavalry cannot, or at least should not, be used to hold ground. Cavalry should always have the element of surprise, catching the foe off guard, say in bivouac, striking swiftly, capturing or destroying enemy material, demoralizing the enemy, inflicting casualties and then disappearing over the horizon as swiftly as they came.
This was certainly the case of the Cavalry raid by the Assateague Light Horse on July 8.
My wife and I were just setting up camp in B loop of the campground at Assateague State Park. As it was a mid summer day in an ocean beach park, the loop was full of happy campers, some just returning from a swim, others like ourselves, just setting up camp. Joan was making supper, I was pitching the tent. It was a Norman Rockwell scene; children were laughing and teasing, Dads were barbecuing, Moms were organizing and older female sibs were being decorative in their bikinis. There was no thought of a raid.
We did not realize that we were being observed and assessed by the commander of the Assateague Light Horse. There were about 12 horses in the band, including some colts. They were standing in the dunes a short distance from the campground loop, watching and waiting.
It is said that there is a moment of suspended animation in a raid when it dawns upon the victims that something is up but it is too late to do anything about it.
"THEY'RE COMING!" was the only cry of warning from a startled camper. The horse in command had given a silent order to charge and the herd attacked at the canter.
Surprise was complete. Ice chests were expertly knocked off tables and burst open, bread, fruit, salad makings, ears of corn and so on were eagerly seized by the raiders.
Defense was feeble. Unlike the horses, the campers were disorganized and had no plan. Shouts and the waving of arms did no good. The Assateague Light Horse had learned from experience that shouting and waving humans were not to be feared. campers that physically got in the way were shouldered aside.
The commander of the Assateague Light Horse, a roan stallion swept up a package of grapes from our table.
I had a flexible aluminum ridge pole of our tent in hand and used it as a prod to poke the stallion in the withers and drive him off. After securing our campsite, I did the same for other campers who were ineffectually waving and shouting.
The raid was over in a few minutes. The raiders retreating to the dunes with their loot.
I was impressed. I had the feeling I was witnessing a page turning in horse evolution; predatory pack behavior on the part of herbivores! Was this the development of stallion leadership that had an interest in acquiring a new food source for the benefit of the band as well as sex and territory. Interesting!
(Animal behaviorists, spoilsports as they are, would smile indulgently at this anthromorphism, and suggest that the stallion's dim brain had begun to associate the late afternoon (dinnertime) with a sudden abundance of conveniently placed food and acted. Horses are herd animals and his harem simply followed him at whatever gait he set.)
Still, I was impressed. Nathan Bedford Forrest or John Singleton Mosby could not have pulled off a more effective cavalry strike. B Loop was completely devastated.
Naturally, there would be a court of inquiry.
About ten minutes later a Maryland State Park Ranger drove up to talk to me. It seems that I had been reported for annoying the horses (No good deed goes unpunished, neighbors!)
It seems that there was a $200 fine in the state park for interfering with the horses.
I could imagine the headlines in our local paper "BELOVED CHRISTIAN BUREAUCRAT CITED FOR HORSE MOLESTATION!" My reputation would be ruined! It would be as if Mark Trail had been arrested for poaching!
Now whether we would buy the $200 ticket would depend a lot on our attitude. As my readers who are or were in law enforcement, "attitude" defines whether you get (A) an informational talking to, (B) a written warning, or, (C) (top of the line!) citation and/or arrest.
You must present yourself as an alert, environmentally concerned citizen; not stupid, but temporarily ignorant of regulations and very willing to be educated on the subject by such an obviously competent instructor.
Any other attitude will put you on railroad tracks bound for citation with the certainty of sunrise and sunset.
Recalling my own law enforcement days, the cry of "You can't give me a ticket!" simply raised my competitive spirit and became a self fulfilling prophecy. The ominous "Do you know who I am?" elicited the mischievous response "No, but if we check your driver's license, we'll both know!" (Inevitably, the person turned out to be some mid-level government flunky or the relative of some congressional aide; I never had a real celebrity pull that one.) I doubted that telling the ranger I was a personal friend of the Great Bear would cut much ice.
So,with that mental telepathy that comes with being closely married, Joan and I silently agreed to project Good Attitude.
The ranger began by telling us that the "Wild Ponies were part of Maryland's Great natural heritage and a treasure for us all... (Colonel Mosby and his band were watching from the edge of the dunes, I don't know if a horse can grin, but Mosby seemed to be doing so.) The ranger continued with an admonition to "not to put food where it will attract horses" (which in this case was on our plates) and finished up with the hearty ranger invocation "...Don't take matters into your own hands, if there's a problem, call us and we'll deal with it!" (Joan and I refrained from pointing out that it took a good ten minutes for a ranger to arrive, and then WE were the ones dealt with, not the horses!)
However, with much agreeable nodding and polite murmuring, we passed the Attitude Test with flying colors, getting only the Informational Talking To.
We were camping in Assateague State Park as the much larger (and less expensive) Assateague National Seashore campground was full. The state park and the national park adjoin each other, but there is no fence between them and the Assateague Seashore herd moves easily between state and NPS jurisdiction. I was curious as to how the NPS handled Mosby and his band.
One answer is The Pony Patrol. The Assateague Pony Patrol is one of the best uses of Volunteers in the Parks that I've seen. They are retired men and women who wear " pony patrol" hats and vests who generously donate their time to manage the interaction between the taxpayers and the Assateague pony herd. This is invaluable work as pigeons are the only wild animals that many of the tax payers from Philadelphia and New York have ever encountered. The Pony Patrol gently dissuades the humans from petting or feeding the beasts, advertently or inadvertently by leaving an unattended cooler on the beach or at a table. The Pony Patrol understand herd dynamics and break up planned raids on campsites.
Assateague State Park apparently does not have a Pony Patrol of its own, hence the guerrilla activities of Mosby and his band.
Although the Pony patrol does yeoman service, there are problems. Exotic species management and control is a hot button issue.
Some exotic species like the Northern Snake head fish, and the wild pig are ugly as colon cancer, no one admires them and no sane author writes childrens' books about them.
This is not true of wild horses or wild burros.
They are kind of cute. Children love these beasts and love to read stories about them, which makes them love them even more.
Enter childrens' author Marguerite Henry, who won the Newberry prize for childrens' literature for her 1947 MISTY OF CHINCOTEAGUE. The book was a runaway best seller as pre-adolescent girls have a thing about horses. Like the lady who does the HARRY POTTER series, Ms Henry knew pay dirt when she saw it. MISTY OF CHINCOTEAGUE was followed by STORMY, MISTY'S FOAL, then SEA STAR, ORPHAN OF CHINCOTEAGUE, and wrapping the series up with MISTY'S TWILIGHT.
All of these books created an army of little girl MISTY adorers who passed the habit on to their own daughters who passed it to their daughters in a cycle that is unlikely to be broken anytime soon. (I have an idea that it was one of these pre-pubescent horse loving girl brats that squealed on the Christian Bureaucrat!)
As for Marguerite Henry, she went on to complicate the lives of other federal resource managers by writing the ever popular BRIGHTY OF GRAND CANYON, a book about a miner's burro who "blazed the trails of the Grand Canyon long before it was a park". Like MISTY OF CHINCOTEAGUE, BRIGHTY OF THE GRAND CANYON was made into a very successful Disney movie, attracting even more admirers of exotic species. (There actually was a life size bronze statue of "Brighty" at one of the concessions on the South Rim of the Canyon until the NPS made them take it down during the burro reduction furor of the 1970's, when "Brighty's" kin were eating Grand Canyon down to the geology)
Not to show partiality to the National Park Service and the Fish & Wildlife Service, Ms Henry went on to terrorize the range cons of the Bureau of Reclamation with her 1966 book MUSTANG, WILD SPIRIT OF THE WEST, an idealization of "Wild Horse Annie" who fought to keep the feral horse herds on BLM land "wild and free.
All these books and movies made it difficult for federal land management agency to "manage" a charismatic, cuddly exotic species ("manage" as in "BLAM!") as the managers were under a magnifying glass held by unforgiving little girls (and their formidable, voting, letter-writing parents. (Actually, not a bad state of affairs if one believes in transparency in government)
The problem is that feral ponies reproduce with malthusian enthusiasm. As an exotic, they have no natural enemies. (To balance nature the natural way, the National Park Service would have to bring in exotic old world predators. In this case it would be European Gray Wolves and Siberian Tigers, which might give some pause to Assateague campers en route to the restroom at night.
Starvation and disease would reduce the herd, but not before the horses had reduced the vegetation of the island to sand and gravel.
As is well known to MISTY lovers, this is no problem for the Chincoteague herd on the Virginia half of the island, managed by the Fish & Wildlife Service. The more ponies, the more profit to the Chincoteague Volunteer Fire Department, which owns the herd and auctions off the surplus after the famous Chincotegue pony swim.
NPS choices were much more complicated. The NPS had no plans to drive surplus ponies south of the fence into Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge or start a rival pony swim and auction of its own. The NPS is simply not in the commercial horse business.
The answer was of course, birth control and the NPS was lucky enough to find some brilliant scientists who were able to put together an ingenious dart administered anti-conception vaccine that worked and will stabilize the size of the Assateague herd.
I called up Carl Zimmerman, head of resource management at Assateague to ask him if everything was hunky dory with Misty and Mosby.
More or less, and much of an improvement over the previous looming equine overpopulation disaster.
There was one small hitch. The herd had stabilized at about 175 individuals, which is great except that the optimum carrying capacity of Assateague is around 125 ponies. This means about 50 too many.
Close enough for government work, you say. So what! Let 'em live out their days in peace and then go to the big horse pasture in the sky.
That's the problem. They don't conveniently die off. As lady humans have discovered, belting out a baby every year is hazardous to your health. The same is true of horses. If mares have one or two foals instead of 17, the mare lives to the ripe old age of 40 or more rather than just 20 years. All that time, they're chomping away on the native vegetation. The native vegetation, not having evolved with bovines or equines in mind, does not respond well to heavy grazing. Since God did not really intend the local plants as horse chow, the horses have to eat more of it to get the nutrition to live and reproduce (This also may be why the horses show an inordinate interests in the contents of tax payers' coolers (Though this is your editor's opinion and not that of Carl or the NPS)
Your editor suggested that one solution would be to round up 50 of the most villainous horses, including Mosby and his guerilla band, and push them south of the fence into Chincoteague to be sold as mounts for teen age girls (A fitting fate for Mosby and his crew!)
Carl allowed that some undisciplined, trouble making horses had been moved south of the fence in the 1980's, but that was no longer a solution as the Chincoteague Volunteer Fire Department was seeking to develop a distinctive breed, the Chincoteague (and indeed had gotten it registered.) This means that they do not want the addition of indeterminate bloodlines from the NPS herd.
Now neighbors, resource management, particularly that of a charismatic species, exotic or otherwise is fraught with danger; sort of like juggling hand grenades and trumpeter swan eggs simultaneously; you have to keep the pins in the former and not drop the latter. Because of this, the NPS has to be very circumspect (and transparent) about the future of the (alledgely) surplus 50 ponies. First of all, it has not been officially determined that there ARE 50 surplus horses. There will have to be press releases and public meetings galore. The NPS will have to pound on the woodwork to allow even the most weird animal rights groups to come out and have their say.
Should it be agreed that there are 50 ponies too many, then what to do?
Your editor suggests investigating various private animal refuges that will take horses and other equines.
One such refuge that comes to mind is "Black Beauty Ranch", a 1400 acre private reserve near Murchison, TX.
Black Beauty Ranch was started by the hugely controversial animal protector, Cleveland Amory to shelter the 577 exotic burros that his Fund for Animals rounded up in Grand Canyon National Park. The NPS had planned to eliminate the burros though gunfire, believing that it would be impossible to round up the burros. Mr. Amory proved that it was indeed possible, much to the chagrin of many.
Cleveland Amory was an independently wealthy Eastern society figure who wrote humorous books on a number of subjects. He also had a humorous, depreciating take on us federal bureaucrats. (Although Mr. Amory has long since gone to the Happy Pasture in the Sky, one of my friends in feral livestock management in the Department of Agriculture still gets apoplectic when Amory's name is brought up.
Be that as it may, Black Beauty Ranch can be reached at Box 367, Murchison, TX 75778.
Should an adoption program be needed for residency at Black Beauty Ranch, I will be glad to assist in a scholarship for Mosby.
CAMPGROUNDS
Recently, the NEW YORK TIMES called me up and asked my opinion on camping in the National Parks.
Now neighbors, you are asking yourself why the NEW YORK TIMES is asking the Christian Bureaucrat about NPS campgrounds. Why are they not asking Fran Mainela HER opinion on camping in the national parks?
Friends, the answer is obvious. Fran Mainela does not talk to 800 pound flying bears. I do. Therefore, I am more colorful copy and will sell more newspapers (Unless of course, Ms Mainela starts talking to Thunderbear.
"Well then", you ask jealously, "What makes YOU such an expert on NPS campgrounds?"
Actually, nothing whatsoever. Being a truthful midwesterner, I told Ariel, the NEW YORK TIMES lady that campground management was not my specialty or field of expertise in the National Park Service. No matter.
It seems that the NEW YORK TIMES was doing a story on NPS campgrounds and wanted some background. Ariel was part of the team and obviously needed some colorful background.
Fortunately, I had just returned from a camping trip to Shenandoah National Park, Blue Ridge Parkway, and Cumberland Gap National (or SHEN, BLRI, and CUGA as we cognoscenti say) and therefore I could offer Ariel some first hand taxpayer experience.
"What was it like?" Ariel asked.
Now, neighbors, after about 100 years of trying, the national parks have gotten pretty good at running campgrounds, so the experience, unlike your first kiss, was not exactly breathtaking.
"It was O.K." I said, noncommittally.
"Do you tent or use an RV?" Ariel asked
"Tent" I responded. (Clearly, that was a test and I had passed it.)
"Were there lots of RV's in the campgrounds?" (The way Ariel said "RV's" , I could tell that recreational vehicles were deemed sinful.
(Before continuing, perhaps I should explain THE NEW YORK TIMES to our Western readers who may be more familiar with the opinions expressed in say, THE DESERET NEWS. You see, THE NEW YORK TIMES is a well meaning, somewhat provincial left of center Eastern newspaper. THE NEW YORK TIMES believes it is on God's side (or perhaps it is the other way around) Their grip on factual accuracy is somewhat tenuous and they will sometimes cheerfully adjust the facts of a story to fit the liberal editorial biases of the paper.)
With that caveat in mind, I answered the question carefully and truthfully
"Yes, there were some RV's in the campgrounds."
"Did you see any, ah, problems".
"Not particularly" I replied "Should there be?"
"Well, we've heard reports of Armageddon in the campgrounds"
Now, neighbors, I hadn't noticed RV campers pouring boiling oil on the tent campers or shooting flaming arrows at them from the ramparts of their RV's and told Ariel so.
Clearly, from the standpoint of THE NEW YORK TIMES I was not a certifiable colorful character and they would have been better off interviewing Fran Mainela
Ariel thanks me politely for my contribution and provided a number to call if I thought of anything of further interest.
It was apparent that Ariel and THE NEW YORK TIMES were rehashing one of the favorite non-problems of campground management.
That is, if one sleeps in a tent, one is far, far more virtuous than one who sleeps in a tin box on wheels (TBOW).
Far be it for your kindly editor to judge why this should be so. Men have been brutally slaughtered for tying their turban in the wrong manner or inconveniently worshipping the wrong god, so I suppose there is ample precedent for defining virtue on how one sleeps in a national park campground.
The holy grail of the anti-RV set is the argument that the "RV campers exclude themselves from Nature with an artificial environment which prevents them from experiencing Nature."
Well, yes. That's why the North American plains Indians invented America's first RV, the teepee, so they could exclude themselves from experiencing Montana in January and so they could move around easily in the summer. Sleeping naked on the ground and walking never seemed to have occurred to them after the invention of the horse.
As it turned out, the RV campers seemed to hike the trails and enjoy Nature just as much as I did, at least during the day. At night, they did seem prone to the sin of watching TV. (I don't know this for a fact, only through circumstantial evidence as one of the RV owners was up on the penthouse of his RV, fixing his satellite dish.)
I also don't know what kind of meals, vegetarian or profane, that the RV'ers prepare in their kitchens. I don't know what kind of conversations they have or the books they read. I don't know if they are having a Wilderness Experience, and if so, whether they are using the Missionary or the Canadian position.
Perhaps it is none of my business.
It is always the business of cranky environmentalists and provincial media like THE NEW YORK TIMES, however.
H.L. Mencken defined a religious fundamentalist as "One who lived in fear that someone, somewhere, might be happy.
A cranky environmentalist might be defined as "One who lives in fear that somewhere, somehow, a middle class person might be comfortable."
Many of the RV set are older. Some of the gentlemen are old enough to have done considerable camping and wilderness experiencing in places like Guadecanal, The Ardennes Forest, and the Chosen Reservoir or Viet Nam. Understandably, they might prefer a firm mattress and a handy toilet at this stage of their lives.
Some cranky environmentalists like to play the class card, noting that RV's often cost "scores of thousands of dollars" whilst environmentally pious proles like the Christian Bureaucrat make do with a $299 REI tent. They are correct. You can easily get into the six figure numbers if you buy a road barn with all the bells and whistles. The cranky environmentalist assumes that the RV is automatically some frivolous toy used between jetting off to Aspen or Cancun.
Indeed, William Penn Mott, Director of the NPS under President Reagan, who should have known better, wanted special fees for the RV's as the owners were obviously well off and could easily afford an NPS version of a luxury tax.
This is not necessarily the case. Often the retired middle class RV owners have sold the family home, banked some of the proceeds and used the rest to pay for their RV. Their home on wheels is literally their only home.
So does this give the RV owners holy writ to use narrow park roads and clog up the campgrounds?
No, but I am not more virtuous because I transport my tent with a slightly smaller TBOW (In my case, a Toyota Camry. Like the RV, my Camry prefers asphalt roads and takes up nearly as much space as the RV. So am I as evil as the RV owner? Well, yes. It goes with the territory.
You see, the NPS made a Faustian bargain with the TBOW people in the teens of the last century. If the parks were opened up to TBOWs, the popularity (and the finance) of the parks would be guaranteed forever more.
No, there was no deep, dark plot. John Muir, the arch tree-hugger, was all in favor of TBOWs. Thought they'd really open up the parks to the people ("Soon, these blunt nosed beetles will be mixing their gasoline breath with the piney air etc etc". He was certainly right on both opening up the parks and the gasoline breath. Muir and others were opposed by the U.S. Army who were running the parks and thought the admission of TBOWs would be an unmitigated disaster. They were right. (Yea, Army!)
A decade or two later, Stephen Mather pushed though the legendary Going to the Sun highway in Glacier National Park; an undeniably spectacular motor way, presently environmentally controversial and a maintenance millstone around the neck of the park.
Around the same time, we got Shenandoah, the first (and hopefully the last) National Park constructed for TBOWs. Constructed? Didn't God make Shenandoah? No, He didn't have the money, but we did. (Henry Ford donated $20,000 to the project: altruistic of him) We carved out a two lane asphalt road on the military crest of a mountain range for 106 miles. Hasn't been done recently. (Wonder why? It's unlikely we'll do the same to the Sangre De Cristo Range in our latest national park, Great Sand Dunes National Park & Preserve)
Slowly and fitfully, the parks are trying to extract themselves from the embrace of the TBOW tar baby. Parks like Denali, Zion, Yosemite, Grand Canyon and other are looking for access other than TBOWs
However, until we find a solution, it doesn't matter if you drive up to your campsite in an RV, a Camry, or a Bradley Fighting Vehicle, we are all guilty.