EDGAR AND EMILY: MESSENGERS FROM GOD
It is rare that God Almighty interferes with American politics, but the case of Edgar and Emily seems that rare exception.
Edgar and Emily are messengers sent by the Almighty to drive evil Gale Norton from her office at the Department of Interior.
Who are Edgar and Emily?
Edgar and Emily are Red-winged Blackbirds.
You see, pursuant to God's orders, Edgar and Emily have been attacking everyone trying to get in the front entrance of Main Interior at 18th and C St, the present lair of Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton. The reason for the apparent randomness of the attacks is that all humans, even Gale Norton, look the same to a Red-winged Blackbird. No matter! If all humans can be kept out of Main Interior, there is some hope for saving the environment.
Now the Red-winged Blackbird is the one bird that you had better know the scientific name (Agelaius phoeniceus), otherwise you may get a "congressional" for being a wise guy when a tax payer says "Oh ranger! What's the name of that black bird with red wings?" and you provide the correct, (but possibly smart aleckey) answer.
It is only fair to mention that there are other, purportedly "scientific" reasons why Edgar and Emily are terrorizing taxpayers at 18th and C.
According to the Fish & Wildlife Service and the Smithsonian, Red- winged Blackbirds are extremely territorial and protective during nesting time and they will "dive bomb" and even strike passers by. (One can imagine the rage and indignation of a welfare rancher en route to having his already bloated grazing allotment increased to the detriment of the environment and Edgar dives out of nowhere and....."THAT GODDAMMED BIRD PECKED ME! I'D KILL THE SUMBITCH IF I HAD MY SHOTGUN! YOU'D BETTER DO SOMETHIN' ABOUT IT! I'M A PERSONAL FRIEND OF SENATOR GREEDHEAD!")
And so, the intricate gears, ratchets, wheels, and chains of bureaucracy began to turn and haul.
Who is responsible for Edgar and Emily? It is true that Fish & Wildlife have a statutory responsibility for native American bird life (Red-winged Blackbirds are native Americans) but, on the other hand, the National Park Service owns Bolivar Park, the home of Edgar and Emily, and therefore, the NPS now owns the problem of Edgar and Emily.
Bolivar Park is not quite as well known a NPS property as Yellowstone Park, but it has its admirers. It is small, just a few hundred square feet, and sits diagonally across the street from the "C" street entrance of main interior. Bolivar Park consists of a statue of its namesake, Simon Bolivar, liberator of South America and a reflecting pool.
To make the pool more visually interesting, the National Park Service planted marsh vegetation, including a small clump of cat tails.
Now this is where it gets environmentally interesting. You see,Red- winged Blackbirds prefer cattails for nesting purposes. The reason for this choice is that Red-wings favor a marshy habitat. Since there are no trees in marshes, Red-wings ingeniously make do with cattails by lashing a bowl shaped nest of woven grass to the stalk of a cattail. This keeps the nest out of the water and away from many predators.
Now of course, Red-wings can build nests in other places, but cattails are by far the preferred venue. Thus when Edgar staked his territorial claim to one of the few cattails growing in Washington, DC, he became one of the most eligible bachelors in the city.
Edgar soon attracted and courted Emily, showing her his little marsh and cattails. She acquiesced. As part of their pre-nuptial agreement, Edgar promised Emily that he would defend their territory against all comers; weasels, raccoons, snakes, hawks, and humans, Greedhead Republican or otherwise.
Edgar kept his part of the bargain and Emily laid a clutch of four eggs.
Indeed, Edgar has been so heroic in his defense that the NPS has been forced to issue a "Wildlife Notice" for Bolivar Park in both Spanish and English. This four color bulletin is handed out to employees and visitors to Main Interior. The bulletin states that male Red-wing Blackbirds are very territorial and you must be alert when entering the C Street entrance and avoid the Bolivar pond area.
The Wildlife Notice then gets philosophical and states that "Managing wildlife in urban settings is complicated because it is difficult to apply traditional management strategies to the urban environment. Whenever possible, the National Park Service makes every attempt to rely on natural processes to manage plant and animal species. However, sometimes in an urban environment, the locations where animals choose to live are not compatible with human and cultural requirements and management may be required."
This is where the Wildlife Notice gets a bit ominous, as the term "management" is Interiorspeak for "kill".
Now Edgar and Emily will be back next year, and so will their progeny. So how can the NPS avoid a possible relations disaster of the WASHINGTON POST and/or NEW YORK TIMES photographers taking pictures of rangers firing shotguns at Edgar to protect Gale Norton?
The answer may lie in habitat modification. It may be best for all concerned to eliminate the cattails and replace them with native species of marsh plants that are not attractive to nesting Red- winged Blackbirds.
On the other hand, I still think that, cattails or no, Edgar and Emily are messengers sent from God.
RANGER JANE AND THE PORNOGRAPHERS, CONTINUED
You will remember in issue # 252, we discussed the problems of Ranger Jane, who sought an investigation of the park pornographer, only to be accused of downloading pornography, herself.
Ranger Jane went to PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility) for help. At that point, Ranger Jane ran into a catch 22 situation. Yes, she had been sadly abused by management, and yes, the Chief Ranger should not have been downloading pornography, but the problem is that PEER was established to protect whistleblowers who were defending the environment; not simple, garden variety oppression and harassment of an employee.
NOT FAIR! You say. "Life is unfair" as JFK sagely observed. You see, PEER has limited funds and limited staff, so it must use them to do what it is chartered to do, that is; protect the protectors of the environment. The folks that fund PEER want a spectacular bang for their bucks; they want to see high level perps taken down for environmental crimes or park mismanagement. The fact that the boss is being mean to you does not qualify (Sounds more like normal government employment!).
This is why PEER cautions extreme prudence in whistleblowing. If one day you were to stride confidently into the superintendent's office and state "YOU AND YOUR EVIL MINIONS WILL SHORTLY BE UNMASKED AND TRUTH, JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY WILL PREVAIL, FOR I HAVE SUMMONED PEER!, you many have hung yourself out to dry.
Unless you can convince PEER, POGO, GAP or any other of the whistleblower groups that your beef is directly related to protection of the environment, you may end up explaining your actions to the superintendent's best friends in Region all by your lonesome.
So if PEER won't help you, who will? Well now, friend, you just might need a good lawyer.
Now most middle class Americans would file that suggestion along with suggesting a good prostitute (Indeed, the two professions are often closely allied in the American mind). Unless one is in Hollywood, the Mafia, or a messy divorce, a decent, law abiding person does not need a lawyer. There are few EMT jokes or school teacher jokes, but there are a million lawyer jokes (Example: "What do you call 3,000 lawyers chained together on the bottom of the ocean? Answer: A good start.)
Along with lawyer jokes, there is an understandable bias against making waves and for settling the matter "in house and out of court". The folksy former director of the National Park Service, Gary Everhard often drawled that lawyers weren't necessary, and that just about every personnel problem could be worked out over a cup of coffee to everyone's satisfaction.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court indirectly disagrees with Mr. Everhart saying that this ain't necessarily so; that where there is a disproportion of power, a lawyer might be a good idea. While Miranda warnings might not apply in a civil case, there is the implication that if one's career is on the line, it might just be a good idea to have disinterested legal counsel explain your rights to you before you tell the boss man everything and particularly before you sign anything.
The mere presence of a lawyer on the scene may have the effect of crucifixes, garlic, silver bullets or wooden stakes on the bureaucratic vampire that is stalking you. I recall one NPS nobleman, encrusted with years and honors, deferred to by everyone, praised by all who knew him both in and out of the NPS and honored by those in his academic field. He remarked to me that once in his career he found it necessary to hire a lawyer to get a micro managing, control freak of an NPS superintendent off his back. The presence of the lawyer worked wonders and it was smooth sailing careerwise from then on.
This is not always the case, however. Lawyers create problems in their own right, particularly economic (yours, that is) The February 1996 issue of CONSUMER REPORTS has an interesting article entitled "Choosing a Lawyer: What can go wrong? (Apparently, quite a bit) CONSUMER REPORTS surveyed some 30,000 people who had used a lawyer. Out of the 30,000 people, some 27% said that they had a bad experience with their lawyer. According to CONSUMER REPORTS "Of all the services we've surveyed over the years, only diet programs have received a worse score." (The comparison of lawyers and fake diet gurus should inspire some more lawyer jokes.--ed.)
Realizing that lawyers are apparently a necessary evil in our society, CR suggests a list of questions to ask your prospective lawyer to protect yourself from your own lawyer if not your opponent. They are: 1. What's your experience in this field? Have you handled matters like mine? 2. What are the possible outcomes? 3. How long do you expect this matter to take? 4. How will you keep me informed as the case progresses? 5. Will anyone else be working on my case? 6. How do you charge? If you charge by the hour, what is your hourly rate? Will junior attorneys or paralegals in your office be able to handle some of the administrative work at a lower rate? If you charge a fixed fee, what is it and what happens if something unforeseen occurs? If you charge on contingency, what percent of a settlement or award will that be --and can that be taken after expenses are deducted? 7. Beyond fees, what kinds of expenses will there be and how do you calculate them? 8. What's a ballpark figure for my total bill? 9. Will you put your estimates in writing? (Ah the moment of truth, neighbors!--ed) 10. How often will I be billed? if we have a disagreement over billing, will I be charged for the time spent disputing the bill? Will you agree to mandatory arbitration if we can't settle a dispute? 11. How can I help you help me? Can I do some of the work? What other information do you need from me? 12. What are my alternatives? Do you recommend arbitration or mediation? Do you know any good arbitrators or mediators?
CONSUMER REPORTS has apparently had some experiences of its own in dealing with lawyers and suggests "If the lawyer can't explain or treats a request for clarification in a condescending manner, cross his or her name off the list." CR further elaborates dealing with lawyers and the law in "The Consumer Reports Law Book" which can be ordered at 1-515-237-4903.
"Yes", you say, "Lawyers are a tricky bunch, but how do you contact a lawyer that has experience dealing with civil service issues?"
Well now, neighbors, you just might like to look up the website of the National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA) at www.nela.org. They will provide you with their mission statement and a convenient map of the U.S. You click on the particular state and the names and addresses of the NELA lawyers in that state will be revealed unto you.
Now employment law is not a very lucrative legal field, so understandably, there are not too many lawyers in that practice. If you are in trouble at, say, Agate Fossil Beds National Monument, Nebraska, you will find that there is only one NELA member in the state. You are a bit better off if you have sinned in Utah, as there are four NELA lawyers in the Beehive state. The bad news is that they are all in Salt Lake City. You will find this to be the rule that NELA lawyers, like most lawyers, tend to hang out in the larger cities (You will remember the exception, Atticus Finch, in the movie "To Kill a Mockingbird" as played by Gregory Peck, a saintly small town lawyer who literally worked for hickory nuts to help the poor: The downside was that his client was not only convicted, but shot to death trying to escape: The moral being not to put to much faith in even the saintliest of lawyers.)
So should you hire a lawyer? Probably not, unless you have no choice.
I interviewed "Ranger Jane", the heroine of issue #252. You will remember that she downloaded the Chief Ranger's pornographic files to demonstrate his misuse of government time and equipment and was (of course!) charged with downloading pornography and suspended for two days.
I asked her if she would do things differently.
She advocated three simple steps:
1. DON'T DO ANYTHING until you have contacted PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and told them everything and ordered and read (twice) their booklet "The Art of Anonymous Activism: Serving the Public while Surviving Public Service. Send them a donation. (Jane's suggestion) They are even poorer than the NPS. PEER can be reached at 202-265-PEER, or 2001 S street, NW Suite 570 Washington, DC 20009
2. DO NOT CONTACT the Inspector General's Office. (Jane learned this the hard way).
3. DO CONTACT the Office of Special Council (OSC) They are legally bound to take action and protect your privacy
Jane tells me that she would still be a whistleblower even though she did not realize at the time that being a whistleblower is the equivalent of taking on a second full time job (with a negative salary!) as you fight the inevitable reprisals.
Good on you, Jane!
LIONS, TIGERS, AND RANGERS
One of endless trivia questions asked by children, particularly little boy children, is "Who would win a fight between lions and tigers?"
Such a fight would be unlikely in the natural world as lions and tigers occupy different habitats, let alone different continents. (We must qualify this statement as there are a small number of Indian lions, but as noted, they occupy different habitats).
Yes, but who would win a fight between lions and tigers?.
All things being equal, and God normally being on the side of the biggest and meanest, one would think that the world's largest cat, the tiger, would be the winner and the world's second largest cat, the lion, would place a poor second in the fight.
All things are rarely equal, however.
Although the tiger is easily the more powerful creature, it has a fatal weakness. It is a solitary creature, avoiding fellow tigers except for the purpose of mating. Lions on the other hand, are almost unique among felines in being pack animals. They have learned the value of cooperation.
As noted, in the wild, this is academic as the two species never come in contact.
However, in the artificial world of circuses and zoos, a fight between lions and tigers can be financially disastrous and every thing possible is done to prevent such an event.
In a circus lion-tiger battle, each individualistic tiger looks on with curiosity as the lions (team players all!) take out the tigers one at a time by flanking them, one lion distracting with a feigned frontal attack, while the flankers hamstring the tiger and take him down.
This scenario goes down with monotonous regularity until the last tiger is killed or the frantic keepers are able to separate the beasts.
Now neighbors, there is an element of the lion-tiger syndrome in governmental service in which the individual employee believes that somehow, for some reason, he is exempt from being liquidated, that Reduction in Force (RIF) is something that happens to someone else (and possibly deservedly so; dead wood, you know!)
Thus, a protective ranger "tiger" may believe that he/she is at the top of the food chain and cannot be eliminated; that he/she is far too valuable to be eliminated. True, the environmental education guy may have to go, as well as most of the paid interp staff (We can use VIP's), reduction in maintenance would lead to a shaggier but more natural park, and resource management only tells us things that are too horrible to contemplate, so it best to let them go.
There is much truth in the protective ranger's sense of invulnerabity. Whenever there is an order from on high that due to a snowstorm or a lack of funds, "only essential governmental personnel are to report to work", the lads and lassies with the firearms are sure to be among the ones to report for duty. If push comes to collapse on the budgetary front, it is understood that while it may not be absolutely necessary that the park be interpreted or cleaned, it is necessary that the park be protected and administered (thus neatly saving the superintendent, the Administrative Officer and commissioned rangers.)
But is it absolutely true they can call you the "Asbestos Kid" as you can't be fired if you have a commission? Indeed, your esteemed editor has strongly advised you to secure a commission as an extra layer of administrative Kevlar around your career. Even so, does the holding of such a commission guarantee against a RIF? Alas! Nothing in this life is guaranteed except death, taxes, and Greedhead Republicans.
The only thing that holding a federal law enforcement commission will guarantee is that you and your family will continue eating (though not necessarily on NPS premises). An increasingly remote and suspicious federal government, with its numerous enemies, real and imagined; foreign and domestic, will require large numbers of pistoleros for the foreseeable future. You will be one of them.
But you say you don't want to work for Department of Homeland Security in New York City? You say that you want to work where you have always worked; in Mount Rainier National Park or a reasonable facsimile thereof. You also say that pistols are not your primary interest. You are indeed qualified in law enforcement, but your real interest is Search & Rescue and Resource Protection; that over the years you have honed your skills to the point where you can snatch back 83% of the potentially dearly departed from boney hands of Death! You have 3,384 letters of heart felt thanks from the grateful recipient of your Search & Rescue skills! You are irreplaceable! Without you and your sturdy companions, who would save climbers stranded in a Whiteout above Camp Muir?
Now neighbors, you are assuming that Bush, Cheney, Norton et al give a rat's rectum about climbers stranded above Camp Muir.
Ah! Fie on me! I am being unduly cynical! The President and his minions do have our best interests at heart!
Let us introduce you to Faith-based Search & Rescue.
There is no reason that all of the expensively trained and paid professional rangers could not be replaced by religiously motivated volunteers! That is, the fate of the stranded climbers about camp Muir would be placed in the hands of the Four Square Full Gospel Church of the Everlasting Truth! They would do everything that you do, only for free. In fact, they would probably do it better, having the Lord on their side.
And if they fail? Well, its unsporting to sue volunteers for malpractice and besides, it's God's will.
Alright. Forget search & rescue! There will still be plenty of police and security work around the park. I'm commissioned, trained, I'm on site and it would not be cost effective to replace me.
Don't be too sure! You may not have heard of the Wackenhut Corporation.
The Wackenhut Corporation is a sort of private F.B.I. , only more reactionary (In fact, the Wackenhut Corporation was founded by an ex-F.B.I agent by the name of George Wackenhut. It provides "security" for other corporations, very much like the services offered by the old Pinkerton Detective Agency of the 19th century labor wars. The Wackenhut Corporation is known to have files on some 3 million Americans, including, probably, you and I. The Wackenhut people will be able to bid on your law enforcement responsibilities stripped of resource management and protection (that will be another contract) You can bid on it too, but I think I know who is going to win!
"But, but, they can't do that!" You sputter. "There are laws, regulations!"
Actually, no. there are not. There is a Park Service employee protection bill that has been proposed by a junior member of the minority party, which stands about as much chance as a Methodist in Mecca. Fortunately, Congress has placed a hold on Interior's spending any NEW funds on getting rid of archeologist, scientists, researchers, historians, and other varmints, but the administration may yet override this hold.
So what to do? Well a start would be to go against the solitary tiger ranger image and stand together with everyone who is going to be "relocated" by Bush and Norton's lions.
As the 16th century English poet John Donne so memorably observed
No bureaucrat is an island entire of himself
Any bureaucrat's RIF diminishes me
Because I am involved in Bureaucracy; and
Therefore
Never send to know for whom the RIF tolls:
It tolls for thee.
BEAR CROSSING
Summer camping at Assateague National Seashore is always a crapshoot. Assateague is one of only two national seashores in a humanshed of more than 20 million people. The thought of a few days at the beach does occur to many of them. Therefore, you must reserve a campsite far, far in advance. You must plan ahead, you must commit beyond any foreseeable weather forecast. Thus you may find you have scheduled yourself into a howling electrical storm. Even a merely overcast, drizzly day with sullen gray skies merging with equally sullen gray surf is singularly uninviting, reminding one of why our ancestors crawled out of the sea in the first place.
In addition, there are periodic "upwellings" from the bottom of the Atlantic in which the pleasant 75 degree surface water is replaced by water whose last home was the Davis strait off Greenland. These "upwellings" are irregular and difficult to predict, very much like a crapshoot.
One also plays Assateague roulette with unpleasant sea creatures. The main problems being jelly fish (an animal version of poison ivy) and sea lice (crab larvae that have tiny but effective pincers). Swimming into a school of them can drive you out of the water and out of your swim suit. Jelly fish and sea lice are present and absent on an unpredictable basis.
Then there are the insects. They are legendary; so much so, that the Natural History Association sells a book on the subject appropriately titled "What's Eating You?" Green eyed flies, mosquitos, deer flies, ticks and so on, with overlapping hatches so you will never be lonely, that's what's eating you. If there has been much rain, the insects are particularly bad, with multiple hatches. This summer was a near record rainy year.
In the best of years, you must try to get a campsite on the ocean side of the Island rather than the Bay side. If it is a rainy summer, you must REALLY, REALLY try to get a campsite on the Ocean side. The Bay side campground is located in what would appear to be an inviting maritime pygmy forest. The problem is that the insects live here. (The Ocean side is relatively unprotected dunes with not much cover and habitat for insects)
Joan phoned Assateague camping reservations. We were too late for Ocean-side campsites, only Bay-side sites were available and those were two weeks away.
Should we participate in the Assateague crapshoot? Should we bet that there would be no big thunderstorms, that there would be sun, that there would be no "upwelling", that a strong, steady wind would blow the bugs back into the Bay.
Well, neighbors, optimism is what brought our ancestors to America, so we signed up for a Bay-side campground. Joan's only proviso that we get one of those netted bug shelters that goes over your picnic table. I stopped in at our local double discount store and picked up a Chinese manufactured version of a picnic table shelter.
Now neighbors, camping 101 requires that you pre-site any new equipment with instructions more complex than "Close cover before striking" by first setting the thing up in your backyard to avoid unpleasant surprises.
However, as we would arrive at Assateague in the early afternoon, long before dinner, I felt that the campsite could substitute for the back yard.
We arrived at the Bay side campsite early after noon as we had schedules and so did the bugs and the thunderstorm that God had scheduled. I got the tent up before the first drops fell. The table tent was a different matter.
A simple rule of thumb is that the cheaper the product, the more numerous the parts and the opacity of the instructions, a fatal instructional flaw being to try to "simplify" the instructions by leaving out vital steps as, according to the designer, such steps would be "self-evident".
Not that the instructions lasted that long. The Thunderstorm began in earnest with black clouds and ominous rumblings like a high budget horror movie. The instructions melted in a monsoon cloudburst, as did the identifying numbers pasted on the various aluminum tubes that made up the frame of the table tent.
I tried logic. "This must fit there!" Not necessarily and not in that order. I became visibly unhappy. I began to swear mightily until Joan pointed out that cursing God while waving an aluminum pole at His Heaven during an electrical storm might be more temptation than the Deity could resist.
She suggested that I join her in the truck and have a cup of wine. Now that sounded like an excellent idea!
The wine was Australian; that 60/40 Cabernet-Sheraz blend that seems to be an Australian specialty. This brand, called "Bear Crossing", was very, very good. Joan had pulled the bottle from the store shelf because she likes the Cabernet/Sheraz blend and because she likes bears. (The label had a yellow and black diamond shaped sign depicting a koala and the warning, "Bear Crossing".)
The rains continued in Noah-like proportion, and for lack of anything better, I began to read the label on the wine bottle.
According to the label:
"Over a century ago when Dr. W.T. Angove arrived from England to establish a winery at Tea Tree Gully, South Australia, the lush brushland surroundings were populated with Koalas. Today the area is a northern suburb of Adelaide. The March of civilization has forced the retreat of the diminishing Koala population to the nearby foothills.
In creating Bear Crossing wine, Angove's is assisting the Australian Koala Foundation to protect this vulnerable, unique Australian species. Although marsupials rather than bears, they are affectionately known as Koala Bears throughout the world. The label recalls the warning signs placed where Koalas are known to cross the road.
The purchase of this bottle of Bear Crossing will directly result in a contribution to the Australian Koala Foundation. All funds will go to further their educational and conservation work to save the Koala."
Now this was novel! A wine company interested in the environment! Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream seems to go to bat for Mother Nature and other worthwhile causes, but a wine company? Well, why not? You could actually benefit the environment by drinking this Aussie plonk!
This raised the question "Are Australian drinkers morally (or at least environmentally) superior to American drinkers?" After all not too many years ago, you could actually ATTACK the environment by drinking Coors beer (The beer of choice of the more thick headed park ranger as it purported to be a "Western beer" even though the Coors family trust supported a number of anti-environmental causes and politicians.)
Interesting thought, neighbors.
Joan gently suggested that we have dinner in town rather than trying to raise the table tent in the downpour and I gravely concurred.
Now if you plan things just right at Assateague, you can arrange for an absolutely still, breezeless night with nearly 100% humidity and tropical temperature to match as you lie naked in near claustrophobia, listening to the dentist drills of 10,000 mosquitos outside your tent. We achieved that wilderness experience later that night.
The next morning, we joined the NPS life guard, sole occupant of a grim, sunless beach. We three looked like the last humans in those atomic disaster movies. According to the life guard, there had been an upwelling of deep, cold water, hence the lack of customers. Assateague could now accommodate walruses as well as wild ponies.
The life guard had to be there, but we didn't, so we left. Perhaps the first time we had ever totally lost the Assateague crap shoot.
But had we? Everything is educational in a national park, even wine bottles. I was curious about the Angoves winery, the makers of "Bear Crossing", so when we returned home, I tapped them up on the internet (www.angoves.com.au)
In addition to the usual wine talk (Can anyone who is not in daily contact with space aliens REALLY detect "a faint black cherry aftertaste with a lingering licorice overlay") and the usual bragging about the awards and trophies their wines have won, I noted that, in addition to saving the Koalas, the Angoves winery had an environmental statement in which, along with Koala loving, they stated they would do everything possible to avoid doing damage to the Australian environment as they made their plonk. I was inclined to believe them.
Just for old times' sake, I tapped up the Joseph Coors brewing co. on Google to see if the old reactionaries had turned over a new environmental leaf. They had, sort of.
The Coors environmental program, seems to be reactive rather than proactive, as befits the Coors corporate culture.
According to Coors' environmental blurb, "After facing a number of troubling environmental problems in the early 1990s' Coors cut its hazardous waste generation by 90% since 1992 (90% is admittedly quite spectacular, one wonders what they were doing before 1992 and if they might have had some "encouragement" from state or federal agencies.)
Coors claims to have invented the aluminum beer can and thus, aluminum recycling, something not worthwhile with the steel beer can.
Coors established the largest composting operation in Colorado, recycling 11 million gallons of biosolids per year.
Coors established one of the first "organic" golf courses in the U.S. in Golden, Colorado in which no herbicides or pesticides are used.
Coors has consistently reduced the volume of its packaging, significantly reducing the amount of paper used and ending up in landfills.
The thoughtful reader will notice that most of Coors "environmental" achievements are simply good business practices, reducing waste and resulting pollution, better packaging etc. (The golf course covers the ground water supply for the Coors brewery, it would be counterproductive to contaminate it with chemicals.)
Unlike the Australian winery, Coors apparently has yet to make a positive contribution to the environment. That is, Coors has not yet sponsored the reintroduction of the wolf or the Grizzley into Colorado. Until that happy time arrives, THUNDERBEAR in good conscience cannot recommend Coors products to NPS rangers or other state or federal land management employees.
Rather, I suggest that you buy a case of Angove's "Bear Crossing". I have done so and will take a bottle to Assateague in the hope of changing my luck in the next crapshoot
PHIL YOUNG
Phil Young is one of the most interesting of the NPS "Greenbloods" (that is, a protective ranger specializing in fire, environmental law enforcement, and other ranger activities). Like many permanents, he hails from Southern California and is a graduate of Humboldt State. He began his NPS career in 1975 at Bandelier. Subsequent assignments took him to Little Big Horn, Death Valley, Denali, Tonto, Jean Lafitte, Fort Laramie, and Santa Monica. He transferred to the Southwest regional office where he spent a decade managing emergency operations on Interagency Incident Management Teams. In 1991, Phil became an NPS Special Agent, specializing (quite successfully) in investigating ARPA violations. He retired from the NPS in 2000 and is now working for the State of New Mexico Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as a staff archeologist.
Like many in the NPS, Phil is a devout Bullmoose Republican (As opposed to the more common Greedhead variety) and is very active with the New Mexico Chapter of Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP). He is a firm and learned foe of the insidious Greedhead idea that parks are some kind of "frill" that has no economic justification; an evil idea postulated by the minions of heavily subsidized extractive industries that could not exist without huge dollops of the socialism they claim to deplore. Phil very kindly has allowed THUNDERBEAR to publish his paper on the proper valuation of parks.
Do you remember your first trip to a National Park? Many of us do, and have long been fascinated by them. I remember visiting as a youngster and hearing stores of previous visitors-in some cases, tales of lost treasure. As I grew towards my majority, I came to realize that our parks and public lands (forests, preserves and refuges) truly are sanctuaries for the soul; citadels of self discovery, and they are also literally OUR national treasure troves. Former National Park Service Director William Penn Mott used to call parks: "Jewels in the Crown". They are.In his autobiography, Theodore Roosevelt, noted how proud he was of being so directly involved in furthering such a legacy. It certainly has been a national trust, a gift that has kept on giving for more than a century , an investment that has resulted in great dividends.
How many of you think about the economic benefits derived from our parks and public lands? Being a fairly "bottom-line" fiscally conservative Republican, and a member of REP America's (www.rep.org) New Mexico Executive Committee, I thought about it my entire NPS career. After all, the economic value of parks should be near and dear to all, even those individuals whose closest contact with nature is when they get out of their golf carts on a fairway.
Early on, I encountered a visitor that deeply believed parks were a drain on the economy, and a waste of his tax dollars. He was seeing parks simply as an item in the budget figures, not as a dynamic economic contributor. Our National parks and public lands system, and the employees of the many resource agencies, help preserve some great places, assist the public enjoyment by providing wonderful educational experiences and opportunities, and are an integral part of our national economy.
The extractive industries, grazing, logging, mining, etc. when poorly managed, will often follow the economic cycles of boom and bust, while the economic benefits from eco/heritage tourism on our public lands can be more sustainable, as long as the lands retain the integrity and dynamics that bring people to visit them. This principle has not been lost on countries the world over. Industrially developed and developing countries have created parks and public lands in attempts to enhance their environment and take advantage of the revenues generated by these special places. Developing countries see it as simply good long-term business. Way before the movie "Field of Dreams", economically challenged countries realized that "If you preserve it, they will come" and "they" will probably bring their family or friends with them. Countries like Kenya didn't establish parks and preserves solely because it was the nice thing to do.
After the break up of the Soviet Bloc, some of the new countries asked for NPS assistance in assessing and planning new parks and preserves. This wasn't solely for aesthetic reasons. They realized that in their new cash based economy, eco-tourism could bring in much needed capital
Consulting with the government of Argentina, Dr. Don Warder (University of Wyoming) noted that national parks in that country were organized under the Department of Commerce and Tourism, stating "In fact, every South American country in which I did some consulting was involved in developing eco-tourism sites with two objectives: The first was to Preserve and Protect and the second (and often the highest priority) was economic development. Almost every South and Central American country has recognized the benefits of eco-tourism to their economic well-being".
Earlier this year , European television had ads showcasing the experiences available for a Mediterranean heritage vacation in formerly war ravaged Bosnia. The pictures were classic heritage tourism: beaches, mountains, and historic structures.
South Africa, long a leader in the extractive industries in Africa, has certainly realized the economic advantages of environmental tourism. Potchefstrom University boasts a Center for Wildlife Economics: The impacts of eco-tourism haver reached into the private sector as privately owned game farms have increased by 60% the past decade to over 5,300 farms encompassing more than 27 million acres. Between wildlife photo and traditional hunting safaris, it is estimated in South Africa "That the industry generates about $150 million in profits each year, the majority from foreign visitors-primarily Europe and the U.S.
Just as other countries have long known that parks pay for themselves, we know that too. Do you remember the "Great Budget Crisis" of 1995 (Fiscal year '96) The Congress and President Clinton could not agree on a Federal budget and the government was shut down for several weeks for all but essential services. It seemed that every other night the national mass media was highlighting the impacts of the government closures. This included businesses outside Yosemite and other national parks. It was a similar story across the nation. Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Big Bend- many park tour and service related businesses suffered, as did their employees. These privately owned/private sector businesses often rely upon our public land visitors. Because of the economic impacts to the "Grand Canyon State" , the Governor of Arizona (a Republican) wanted his national guard to open and run that park. There was an emotional Federal/State impasse on this subject. The incident did illustrate just how financially important parks are to certain areas and regions. If you've ever seen the bus loads of visitors from Europe and Japan at the Grand Canyon, you have little doubt how important our parks are economically.
In 1998, the US Department of the Interior, conducted a study entitled "State and National Economic Impacts Associated with Travel related Expenditures by Recreation Visitors to Lands Managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The agencies studied included NPS, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. A quick look at my former agency, the NPS indicated that for less than a billion dollar budget investment, the estimated economic impact of NPS recreational expenditures was between 10 billion (low ball formula and 19.1 billion (high ball formula). Not bad return--much to the delight of a fiscal conservative.
The study did not include "Non travel related expenditures (e.g. spending on hunting and fishing gear, camping equipment and souvenirs) yet concluded that recreation visits to DOI managed lands are estimated to account for $24 to $45 billion in travel related expenditures and 348,000 to 571,000 jobs annually. This would be about 3-5% of the dollars generated by the U.S. Travel industry--again just from DOI lands, If the study had included US Forest Service Lands, it would seem that these figures could easily double. Add in the sizable outdoor equipment and gear industries within the U.S. and you're starting to get the picture of just how important our parks and public lands are to our economy (and again, it's sustainable--as long as it's an attractive destination to travelers.)
The report found that many states have large vested interests in the dollars and jobs being generated by recreational visits to DOI lands, with some states like Arizona and California accounting for over $2 billion each to the financial well being of their respective states. Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Oregon, Nevada, Montana (descending order) generate close to $1 billion each, with New Mexico and North Carolina close to $500 million each. It pointed out that the economic "impacts reverberate through the local economy and are experienced in the form of jobs, earnings, and output (ie gross sales revenue)" noting national park visitors often pay for food, fuel , and lodging in local communities (much like my spouse and I recently did on a trip to Canyonlands National Park)
Even though parks are an important economic asset, the debate over HOW we're going to manage ours parks and public lands is a valid one. From my 35 years in the NPS, I know that there is certainly room for improvement. Of course that could be said of any large organization, especially government. The public generally likes us, but we were sometimes viewed as elitist and arrogant, with actions easily mistaken for palace intrigue and empire building. Yet, Congressional support and funding grew. I saw NPS funding increase from 100 million to over $1 billion during my career, while visitor services shrank. Many of the increases were due to new areas being added to the system (admittedly, not all of the new areas were nationally significant) increased training and better equipped professional cadre of park rangers and resource specialists.
However appropriations never kept up with the "Needs" of the NPS and the reasonable expectations of the public(that was paying for it all). These days there is growing talk about "outsourcing" or contracting-out many of the professional resource management positions. In the mid 1980's , I received a Special Achievement Award for drafting an A-76 contract to "outsource" a custodial position at a small park. I'm still convinced that we and the public would have received less of the critical "bang for the buck" had we contracted out the position. It was doable, but fortunately management saw that it was not cost effective and didn't make sense. The experience of other Federal & State agencies that have followed that path have been expressed to me as "It now costs us more but we're getting less" If we really want to improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of our park and public lands employees we need to streamline the bureaucracy and the amount of time/effort attending "required" training that is not directly involved with the skills needed to do the job of preserving and presenting our parks and public lands (Admittedly,some of the "required" training is often a result of the activities of our modern hunter-gatherer; personal injury attorneys and solicitors.)
Parks and public lands are an important ingredient in the stew that is our national economy. The bottom line is that preserving our heritage is not only the right thing to do, but it makes good business sense. President Theodore Roosevelt knew that and I hope our elected officials in the future do too."
Thank you, Phil!