THE LAST WORD - Keeper of the Flame: Jerry Rogers There are more than 380 units in the National Park System. Contrary to popular belief, most of these units do not have towering trees, thundering waterfalls, deep canyons, or shining glaciers. The majority of the NPS units are relatively small, celebrating the history and culture of the United States; places like Independence NHP or Statue of Liberty. Even the large "natural" parks like Yellowstone have a strong historical and cultural component. Yale professor Dr. Robin Winks once remarked that "The National Parks are a great University, with hundreds of campuses scattered across the nation." The Park historian is the Registrar of this University; the Keeper of the Flame. There have been few more dedicated custodians of that trust than Jerry Rogers. Jerry Rogers grew up in Texas, taking a BA and MA in history at Texas Tech University at Lubbock. He worked seasonally as park historian at Fort Davis in 1964 and '65 and went permanent with the NPS in 1967 as staff historian, National Register of Historic Places, Office of Archeology & Historic Preservation and soon was promoted to Assistant Keeper of the Register. At this point, Jerry faced a typical Washington DC dilemma: How to support a growing family in expensive DC. Reluctantly, Jerry resigned from the NPS and returned to Texas to become Director of the Ranching Heritage Museum in Lubbock. In 1972, the NPS made an offer he could not resist: Chief of Registration of the National Register of Historic Places. Promotions and new responsibilities soon followed: Chief, Division of Grants in 1973, Chief, Office of Archeology and Preservation in 1975; Deputy Associate Director for Cultural Programs, 1979 in the Heritage, Conservation and Recreation Service. When HCRS was abolished, he became Associate Director of National Register programs in 1982 and Associate Director of Cultural Resources in 1984. His managerial abilities were obvious and he was made Regional Director of the Southwest Region in 1994. After the structural reorganization that abolished the old Southwest Region and created the Intermountain Region, Jerry accepted the position of Support Office Superintendent, Intermountain Region, retiring from the NPS in 2000 as Chair of Discovery 2000. He is currently working as an almost fulltime volunteer at the Coalition of Retired NPS Employees. In addition to representing the US at international environmental and historic preservation conferences in Italy, the former Soviet Union, The People's Republic of China, India, and Spain, and producing scholarly publications, Jerry has received many honors. Among his many awards, are the Department of Interior Meritorious Service Award in 1993, the 1997 Award for Leadership in Cultural Resource Management from the national Trust for Historic Preservation in 1997, and the George Wright Society's 1999 award for Cultural Resource Management and the Distinguished Service Award in 2002. However, Jerry's "most cherished" award was being named Employee of the Month by the Southwest Support Office "because it was granted by subordinates in recognition of work on their behalf and on behalf of the National Parks.' The Chief Curator of the NPs, Ann Hitchcock, remarked of him: "Jerry thoroughly enjoyed his position as Associate Director for Cultural Resources while maintaining a humble attitude toward the job and the enormous responsibility...Whether answering a Congressional hearing question or commending a colleague, he was always quick with an effective response, pulling relevant and convincing facts, figures and stories out of the air." Bob Utley, retired Chief Historian of the NPS, recalls that in addition to scholarship, Jerry Rogers had the important social lubricant of humor. "We dealt in some pretty heavy and intractable issues. More than once when we got so tangled on an issue, Ernest Connally, then Chief Historian of the office of Archeology and Historic Preservation would tell his secretary to send in Jerry. When he entered, Ernest directed him to the other end of the table. After a minute's silence, with Jerry's apprehension rising, Ernest would say "Jerry, M'lad, make us laugh" Jerry would squirm a bit, and then, invariably, drawing on his Texas background, indeed make us laugh. That often broke the impasse and allowed us to decide the issue." Well now, neighbors, now that we have learned a bit about this Rogers chap, let's ask him a few, blunt questions. THE NPS HISTORIAN ROBERT UTLEY DECLARED GALE NORTON THE WORST SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR IN THE HISTORY OF THAT DEPARTMENT. CONSIDERING THE STRONG COMPETITION FROM SUCH HEAVY HITTERS AS JAMES WATT AND ALBERT FALL, DO YOU AGREE WITH PROFESSOR UTLEY AND WHY? Bob Utley did more to shape my career than any other person, and I agree with my old mentor. There are at least three ways to be "worst" Secretary of the Interior. The most obvious is to be corrupt, like Fall, whose corruption made him the symbol of the Harding administration. During the 19th Century, Interior had a tradition of corruption, but Fall's prison term makes him the poster boy for that kind of "worst." A second way is to be incompetent, but this is usually rather benign by comparison to the other ways. I am not going to guess about who was least competent. But the third, and I think most effective way, is to have policies that are contrary to the public interest and to be effective in carrying them out. Norton's policies were the same as Watt's, but Watt enjoyed the limelight. He liked seeing his latest outrageous act on the evening news and eventually did himself in by what he thought was a joke when he said that a certain new working group included "a black, a woman, two Jews, and a cripple." His grotesque parody of diversity and equal opportunity actually revealed his own grotesque personality and got him fired. Norton has been far more effective in carrying out Watt's pernicious policies because she has been smart enough to carry them out quietly without making a fool of herself. WHO DO YOU BELIEVE WAS THE BEST SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND WHY? Stewart Udall. No question. No other Secretary has had his combination of a thorough understanding of long-term responsibility for stewardship and a positive political environment in which to exercise it. In addition, Udall respected and used the power of other minds. He understood the role of a leader as one who frees the creativity of subordinates rather than stifling it by dominating others. One of the things Udall liked about his National Park Service Director was that George Hartzog would pound on his desk and tell him when he was wrong. Udall, now over 90 and nearly blind, is still out making speeches advocating environmental responsibility. He is a reminder to the rest of us "retirees" that the responsibility to live up to conscience never ends. If we truly worked during our careers for the cause and not for the money--as so many of us say we did--then the obligation to do that work should not stop just because the salary stops. THE CATO INSTITUTE, A RIGHT WING THINK TANK, BELIEVES THAT MOST FEDERAL LAND CAN BE PRIVATISED WITHIN 20 YEARS AND ALL OF IT, INCLUDING THE NATIONAL PARKS, CAN BE PRIVATISED WITHIN 40 YEARS. DO YOU BELIEVE NORTON AND MAINELLA ARE ACTIVELY WORKING ON PRIVATISATION? A wide range of so-called "conservative think tanks" are actually scheme tanks. Posing as a group of academics thoughtfully going about imagining good public policy, they are actually propaganda pools of right-wing extremists who know exactly what they want to do and are about one-third of the way through a plan for how to do it. For at least 30 years, these types have been slowly but consistently chipping away at the credibility of government--spotlighting every inefficiency, ridiculing every instance when an apparently minor species like a snail darter holds up "progress," exaggerating the "burden" of taxes, cutting public budgets in the name of efficiency until an agency becomes incapable of performing its mission and then citing the crippled agency as evidence that government inherently fails. Secretary Norton has consciously gone along with this sub Rosa process, but the real ideological driver for privatization in Interior is Deputy Secretary Lynn Scarlett, who previously worked with the Reason Foundation, an outfit openly devoted to privatization. I doubt that Director Mainella gives much thought to the role she plays in all this, but by blind obedience to orders from above she is carrying it out. GALE NORTON WAS A PROTOGE OF JAMES WATT AND A STAR LAWYER FOR SEVERAL ANTI- ENVIRONMENTAL LAW FIRMS. THEREFORE HER CAREER MAKES A GREAT DEAL OF EVIL SENSE. FRAN MAINELLA, ON THE OTHER HAND, SEEMS TO HAVE HAD A FAIRLY NORMAL PARK MANAGEMENT BACKGROUND. WHAT IN YOUR OPINION CAUSED HER TO BECOME AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUISLING? I believe Fran Mainella is fundamentally a good person, not someone who actually wants to do harm. I understand that during some earlier very difficult periods in her life the Jeb Bush family was very good to her and that she formed a strong bond of personal loyalty that transfers to the President. Loyalty, as evidenced by unquestioning obedience, has been a defining characteristic of the George W. Bush administration. It is the exact opposite of Stewart Udall leading by stimulating the minds of subordinates and encouraging creative disagreement. Can you imagine Fran Mainella pounding on anyone's desk, except maybe that of some poor subordinate who has been too slow to follow orders (which I hear she does)? Nowadays the Director is told--not asked--what to do. She is a mere conduit, expected to convey the orders down the line and to appear in a maximum number of photo-ops out in the parks. The American people are expected to judge the condition of the environment from the appearance that a smiling Director is having a great time out in the parks. My career allowed me to become a student of NPS Directors, as it gave me the opportunity to observe from reasonably close proximity nine of the 16 people who have held the job during the past 90 years. I can tell you one thing with absolute certainty--a real Director's job is in Washington representing the parks and the people of the service upward to the administration and the Congress. The surest sign that a Director is only a figurehead is that he or she spends a great deal of time in the parks representing the administration downward to subordinates. WHO WAS YOUR FAVORITE DIRECTOR AND WHY? Horace Albright. His qualities were numerous, but I personally believe that a strong vision for the future is the single most important characteristic of a good Director. Albright's vision was of a National Park Service that would be truly national in scope rather than a few magnificent but isolated parks in the West. He accomplished it by getting Roosevelt to transfer cultural sites from the Army to NPS in 1933, and then by getting the Historic Sites Act of 1935 enacted. As a cultural resource type, I am glad he made NPS a major cultural resource bureau, but what I admire is his vision of a system that would be everywhere throughout the nation and would have a nationwide citizen constituency. Relatively few Directors have exhibited much vision. Some had it but were thwarted by the political milieu. Others--way too many--thought the status quo was just grand and all they had to do was to protect it. Some have seen the job as taking issues out of the "in" box, handling them, and putting them in the "out" box. But a real Director knows that the world will change and tries to position the NPS to change ahead of --not after--the rest of the world. I believe that vigorously pursuing a strong vision for the future is actually the best, maybe the only, way to see that the traditional qualities of the NPS survive and thrive amid inevitable change. My second favorite is Hartzog, again because he had vision. In pursuing urban parks and national recreation areas, in snatching the National Register of Historic Places from the reaching grasp of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, in promoting National Historic and Natural Landmarks, Hartzog was pursing a grand vision of a National Park Service. The vision, which happens to be my own, is of a National Park Service that directly preserves the very best places and also leads, inspires, motivates, and assists everyone else who wants to preserve scenic beauty and natural or cultural resources, or to provide recreation. . IT HAS BEEN ARGUED THAT THE ACQUISITION, CARE, AND INTERPRETATION OF CULTURAL UNITS IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT AND CONTROVERSIAL THAN "NATURAL" AREAS. DO YOU AGREE? I don't see it as an enormous difference, but in some ways I agree. Cultural resources are non-renewable, whereas some natural resources are not only renewable but may actually be regenerative--a cultural resource is always trying to go away, whereas a natural resource may sometimes be trying to come back. Not even Natural Resource Management is 100% scientific, but history can never be weighed, measured, added, subtracted, multiplied, or divided, as to some degree natural resources can. Evaluation of cultural places involves an even greater degree of judgment. One of our big concerns now is that this administration does not respect science and readily substitutes its political judgment for the conclusions of scientific study, but it has almost always been somewhat that way with cultural resource questions--Citizen Joe History buff always thinks his opinion is just as valid as Dr. Joseph Distinguished professional's. One of the greatest problems of cultural units is that until the 20th Century what passed for "history" was actually national mythology in disguise. You know, George Washington never told a lie, the Founding Fathers were larger than life and divinely inspired, etc., etc. The history profession began to cure itself of that cancer fully 80 years ago, but the average American still craves it and their Congressional representatives can get pretty forceful about making a public agency like NPS support the bullshit rather than telling the truth as best we can understand it. But nature is no bed of roses either. For 76 years a great many park Superintendents generally imaged that scenic beauty equaled healthy natural systems before Dick Sellars' Preserving Nature in the National Parks (Yale University Press, 1992) put a spotlight on the need for genuine scientific professionalism. I have always believed there is more to gain by cultivating the commonalities between natural and cultural resources management than rather than emphasizing the differences. THE CULTURAL UNITS OF THE SYSTEM HAVE BEEN DESRIBED AS A "GRAB BAG," CREATED BY WHIM, WITHOUT A PLAN. WAS THERE A PLAN? They are created by the people of the United States acting through their representatives in Congress. That is more than whim, but way less than a plan. The United States goes through certain periods when it wants to plan, and other periods when it abhors the idea of planning. During the New Deal, planning thrived because big things were being conceived and done, there was money to hire professionals to do the planning and the professionals needed the work. When the Historic Sites Act of 1935 was brand new a lot of attention went into evaluating what kinds of historic places ought to be in the National Park System. During the 1960s and 70s there were attempts to plan and to proactively direct the growth in cultural and other NPS units, and even one effort to legislate a planning process that would propose at least 12 new units per year. But that got hooted down by conservatives as "park of the month," and the emphasis upon planning soon dissipated. Over the years, there has been some degree of coherence in the ways cultural and other units have been proposed and enacted, but it definitely has not been anything that could be called a plan. GRANTED THAT CONGRESS DOES NOT LIKE TO BE DICTATED TO BY A FEDERAL AGENCY, COULD NOT A BI- PARTISAN COMMITTEE AGREE ON ALLOWING THE NPS TO REQUEST OR REFUSE CERTAIN UNITS? The Executive Branch has ample statutory authority right now to evaluate potential park units, to reject some, to make National Monuments of appropriate ones in the Federal estate, and to propose others for the Congress to consider. That is what should be happening. What is lacking at present is a President who wants any of that to be done. But you are correct that part of the dynamic is that Congress wants to be in control of the process and they tend to resent Presidential exercise of the authority to create National Monuments. But if Congress is determined to give the NPS a new unit, regardless of whether NPS believes the place meets criteria, the only way to refuse it is to persuade the President to veto the legislation. SOME CULTURAL UNITS ARE OUTRIGHT FRAUDS, SUCH AS PINCKENY NHS WHICH WAS NOT EVEN LIVED IN BY PINCKENY AND WAS WRITTEN UP IN THE "THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS" SECTION OF THE READERS DIGEST MAGAZINE. SHOULD SUCH MARGINAL AREAS BE DELISTED? Ouch! I knew Charles Pinckney National Historic Site would come up (as it properly should). The unit is not a fraud, but it was a mistake. When the theme "Signers of the Constitution" was being studied, Charles Pinckney's farm was designated a National Historic Landmark because all the other places associated with him had been obliterated. The site included a small but beautiful cenotaph that Pinckney had erected in memory of his father, plus a small three or four room farmhouse. But the Landmark study had been incomplete in that it was done from a constitutional point of view but without drawing upon architectural expertise, and it turned out that the house post-dated Pinckney's life by a few years. This left only the land itself and the cenotaph as directly tied to Pinckney--probably not enough to merit NHL designation. When suburban development in the greater Charleston, S.C. area threatened to obliterate the site, it became a unit of the NPS on a handshake deal between Bill Mott and Senator Strom Thurmond, with lots of bi-partisan support from the S.C. Congressional delegation but without benefit of the suitability-feasibility study that is supposed to be standard for proposed NPS units. Unfortunately, the little problem with the farmhouse was only discovered after all that had been done. The two lessons from this are: always make sure that significance studies are multidisciplinary, and never skip the rest of the planning process. Should a place like this be removed from the National Park System? I was always pretty aggressive about trying to maintain standards for the NHL list, so had the date of the house been discovered before the place became a National Historic Site, and had there been no legal impediment, I probably would have sought to have the NHL designation withdrawn. Based on that, I probably would support putting some covenants on the deed and transferring the property to the local county for use as a recreational and historical park. Some thoughtful people fear that removing even one unit would lead to a cascade of inappropriate delistings, however. ONE PROBLEM IN CULTURAL MANAGEMENT IN THE LITERARY AREA IS THAT WRITERS OFTEN GO OUT OF STYLE AND RARELY MAKE A COMEBACK. GOOD EXAMPLES ARE CARL SANDBURG NHS AND LONGFELLOW NHS. THE GOATS AT CARL SANDBURG NHS ARE MORE OF AN ATTRACTION THAN HIS WRITING AND NO ONE QUOTES LONGFELLOW'S:"SONG OF HIAWATHA" UNLESS THEY ARE SLIGHTLY DRUNK, HOW SHOULD WE ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM OF LITERARY PERISHABILITY? You are on to a valid concern here, but I do not think "literary sites" is the entire context for discussing it. The problem is not just that literary tastes change rather rapidly, but that a certain temporal distance is always necessary in order to make valid judgments about whether something is or is not "historical" enough for the nation to make a commitment to preserve it unimpaired forever. Criteria for Parklands, criteria for National Historic Landmarks, and criteria for the National Register of Historic Places all three contain provisions to the effect that ordinarily we wait until at least 50 years have passed before making a judgment about significance. There are a couple of reasons why these criteria say "ordinarily" rather than making an absolute requirement to wait 50 years. One is that sometimes the significance is obvious and a 50 year wait would clearly be unnecessary. The Arizona Memorial did not need to wait until 1991 to be designated. In some very rare cases, architectural significance can be determined almost immediately--Eero Saarinen's Gateway Arch and the Dulles International Airport terminal come to mind. But the very same accelerated pace of change in American life that produces such outstanding achievements of design also causes many of them to be destroyed before 50 years have passed, and so there are valid pressures to hurry up the evaluative processes. The continuing popularity of a writer's work is not the proper test of his or her significance. Longfellow is nationally significant because not only did he capture and express certain vital aspects of America of his time, but even more because in doing so he and his Transcendentalist colleagues actually contributed to shaping the America that would follow. We create National Historic Sites around people like Longfellow not because we believe they will be remembered, but because we believe they need to be remembered. Seeing to that becomes the interpretive responsibility of the National Park Service. But hurried-up judgments are always dangerous, and should be entered upon with extraordinary caution. In March of 1937 an explosion in a schoolhouse in New London, TX killed 294 people, mostly children. Nothing like that had ever happened before, and most Americans in 1937 probably would have thought it was obviously a nationally significant event that would never be forgotten. But was it? Obviously not. Sandburg died in 1967 and the National Historic Site was created in 1968. Was he truly nationally significant? Maybe. Ordinarily we would say we are approaching the ability to answer that question about eleven years from now. But we didn't wait. When we can wait, we should; when we cannot, we must be extraordinarily cautious. When we don't wait, by the way, that is virtually always a political decision of Congress rather than a professional decision of the NPS. HAS A BLUE RIBBON COMMITTE OF SAY, 20 EMINENT HISTORIANS EVER BEEN PROPOSED TO MEET YEARLY TO PRESENT A LIST OF APPROPRIATE CULTURAL ADDITIONS TO THE SYSTEM TO CONGRESS? This was one of the ideas behind what is now the National Park System Advisory Board. It was created under the authority of the Historic Sites Act of 1935, and I believe its official name was the Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings, and Monuments until Gary Everhardt decided he wanted it to be called the National Park System Advisory Board. The Board was multi-disciplinary and for years was made up mostly of very highly qualified people. During the Nixon administration appointments to the board began to be used to pay off political favors and it went quickly downhill, reaching a nadir about 1990. It recovered rather spectacularly during the late 90s and is an ok board now, but it is always in danger of slipping again. Other efforts have been made that are similar to your suggestion. The Society for American Archaeology developed a professional committee around 1980 to help identify and designate National Historic Landmarks important for archeology. The Civil War Sites Advisory Commission did something a little like this from 1990 to 1993. The American Institute of Architects, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Organization of American Historians, and other professional organizations have all from time to time helped in ways that are relevant to this question. THE CIVIL WAR BATTLIEFIELD PARKS, WITHOUT MENTION OF SLAVERY, HAVE BEEN CALLED "A SUBTLE ENDORSEMENT OF THE CONFEDERCY" DO YOU AGREE? No. I understand the point, but it is a pretty substantial exaggeration. Perhaps it might have been a lot closer to truth 50 or 60 years ago than now. But I definitely do agree that the Civil War was about slavery, and that all the many other things that are sometimes cited as causes are secondary at best and borderline false at worst. I also agree that while it is important to interpret war as war--in other words to interpret strategies, tactics, logistics, heroism, cowardice, luck, etc.--it is also vital to interpret the things that led to war and the consequences that resulted from it. There are many lessons one should take away from a Civil War battlefield, but among them ought to be that slavery caused it. There also ought to be a profound sense of sorrow at the magnitude of its tragedy, a deep sense of relief that it lies in our past rather than in our future, and a commitment to avert future national tragedies through responsible citizenship. THE RECENT ADDITION OF A DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY AT THE CIVIL WAR UNITS HAS CAUSED SOME GRUMBLING IN THE NPS. DID YOU CATCH ANY STATIC? Among the many and various "interest" groups we used to deal with were a couple of old fashioned, hero- worshiping, moonlight-and-magnolia-loving, and racist-beneath-the-surface organizations. A slightly different version of the same involved itself in sites related to the Indian Wars as well. We sometimes caught static from some of these over a variety of issues, including thinly-disguised resentment of the fact that we had a Hispanic Superintendent at Gettysburg and especially a series of American Indian Superintendents at Little Bighorn. These groups had some positive qualities, but I always thought this particular aspect represented the last gasp of a dying mythology and I tried to deal with them pretty directly. I took a lot of pride in defending those Superintendents. AMERICANS, LIKE MOST PEOPLE, PREFER A 'FEEL GOOD" VERSION OF THEIR HISTORY AND DO NOT LIKE THE DARK SIDE. DID YOU HAVE ANY TROUBLE GETTING THE JAPANESE-AMERICAN INTERNMENT CAMP AT MANZANAR ACCEPTED? A great many people seem to have the idea that history means exaltation and celebration of great events--in other words, support for the national mythology. But support for the national mythology is actually propaganda rather than history. Manzanar was made a National Historic Landmark before it became a National Historic Site. Most of the NPS did not really want Manzanar, and virtually none of the political leadership in Interior wanted it. Even much of the Congress wanted it to go away, because it carried implications of the need for a national apology to the wronged individuals, and even payment of reparations. Secretary Don Hodel was invited to dedicate the NHL, but he declined and it fell to me to stand in for him. In the dedication speech I observed that all nations make powerful use of history. Most, and especially the most despotic ones, use it to justify themselves, and I cited a recent example from North Korea. But a truly great nation uses history as a source of lessons about what should be encouraged, imitated, and repeated; and also what should never again be allowed. If both Lincoln and Roosevelt abused the rights of some of their people, using war as an excuse, then must we not always be alert for the danger that some future President might do the same to you and me? I thought the point was compellingly relevant, and is particularly so today. In a way, Manzanar National Historic Site was an idea whose time was precisely right, and that made it a great pleasure to quietly advise its proponents behind the scenes while simultaneously helping NPS, DOI, and finally the Reagan administration, reach a supportive position. SINCE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WOULD OBVIOUSLY BEEN ON THE TORY SIDE IN THE REVOLUTION, DO YOU BELIEVE IT IS NOW POSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH SITES HONORING GREAT BRITISH/TORY VICTORIES, SUCH AS CAMDEN, BRANDYWINE, CHARLESTON AND SO ON, AS AT LEAST A THIRD OF AMERICANS WERE LOYALISTS. This is a trick question because it proposes "honoring" the other side. I believe history must be about learning, not about honoring.Of course the Tory side needs to be told. There would be political, not professional or intellectual, obstacles to doing that, but if I were still Associate Director I would probably enjoy giving that a try. It would be a little like working on Manzanar. HOW CAN THE ANTI ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS OF THIS ADMINISTRATION BE THWARTED? I see at least five ways, each of which the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees is pursuing. By a wisely considered program of shining a spotlight on the truth. For example, when "clear skies" turns out to mean dirty air, make sure the public hears about it. When Fran Mainella says the Management Policies rewrite was undertaken at the request of "Congress," demonstrate that it was actually Congressman Radanovich rather than "Congress," and that the majority of members on record oppose the rewrite. By spotting and exploiting their weaknesses. Secretary Norton may have been smarter than Secretary Watt in that she avoided making self-destructive remarks, but Deputy Assistant Secretary Hoffman was not very smart at all in bringing to Washington the old anti-Yellowstone grudge that he nurtured as a "gateway community" Chamber of Commerce Director and then venting it in a secret rewrite of NPS Management Policies so drastic it would have stood 90 years of NPS experience on its head. By powerful and consistent, but responsible, advocacy. The public is sick of radicals, environmental and other. The strength of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees resides precisely in the fact that we know what we are talking about, that we have no ulterior motive and nothing to gain personally, that we are not politically affiliated, and that we are not radicals. By reminding Americans that the legacy these people want to use up or give away is their property, their heritage, and the birthright of their descendants. Deep down, the people understand this, but it is important to make sure they are thinking about it. By appealing to the best that is within this nation and its people. The destroyers have rationalized that greed is actually good, but an idea like that will eventually expose itself as the worst, rather than the best, of our national traditions. We can and we must rekindle a sense that this country can do great things by acting collectively for the common good, and that with proper leadership government is fully capable of that. THE STAFF OF BIG BEND NATIONAL PARK CAME UP WITH A NOVEL FORM OF RESISTANCE. THEY TOOK A VOTE ON A PROPOSED "STUDY" TO DETERMINE IF THERE WERE MOUNTAIN BIKING "OPPORTUNITIES" IN THE PARK. THEY VOTED UNAMINOUSLY AGAINST IT (SUPERINTENDENT ABSTAINING), AND THEN LEAKED THE RESULTS TO THE COALITION OF RETIRED NPS AND THE MEDIA DO YOU THINK THIS FORM OF PROTEST MIGHT BE A VIABLE WEAPON? This vote was a bold and brilliant idea on the part of Big Bend, and every person involved--including the Superintendent--deserves credit. It might possibly work if several other parks tried the same thing. I suspect that would soon produce a crackdown from above, with orders not to allow such votes. But the crackdown itself might turn out to be one of the Hoffman like dumb stunts that I have just described as a weakness to be exploited. ON THE OTHER HAND, MIGHT THE RANGERS BE REPLACED WITH WACKENHUT SECURITY GUARDS? While this is an extreme suggestion, some of us may be playing into the hands if its advocates. The "National Park Ranger" has had a continuing identity problem ever since the National Park Service began to realize the hard truth that generalists could not in fact "do everything" to the standard necessary for preserving natural and cultural resources unimpaired forever. Even natural and cultural resource specialists with limited training cannot do that in a great many cases. As tasks that Rangers used to do have been taken away and assigned to more highly trained specialists, they have been left to wonder what really a Ranger should be. Very naturally, many have focused on law enforcement as their own specialty. That is fine, but it can take on a hard edge that is inconsistent with the traditional friendly, helpful, Ranger image. Most of the Rangers I know do not want this to go too far. But if it does, they might come to be viewed as replaceable either with cops or security guards. On the other hand, in the generalized public mind, the National Parks are icons for the environment and the Rangers are icons for the parks. There is enormous power in both of those symbols, and we simply must not allow it to slip away from us. Figuring out what a Ranger is, and who is considered a Ranger, is one of the most difficult and important problems facing the NPS--and the Coalition of NPS Retirees, for that matter. JERRY, LIKE ART ALLEN, BOB STANTON, WALT DABNEY AND NUMEROUS OTHER PROMENENT NPS, YOU ARE A SON OF THE GREAT STATE OF TEXAS. IS THERE A SPECIAL MYSTIQUE AND EVEN RESPONSIBILITY IN COMING FROM TEXAS? There is a little bit of a mystique, but I think it is mostly in the minds of the Texans. Everyone has a responsibility to use his or her powers, from mystique or from any other source, to do the greatest possible good for the causes in which he/she believes. Bob Stanton is a Black Texan, but I think his mystique comes from an inner personal character that was forged in overcoming the obstacles Texas set in his path. YOU GREW UP IN VEGA, TEXAS. WHERE, EXACTLY, IS VEGA, TEXAS? In the Panhandle, exactly halfway between Amarillo and the New Mexico line, on historic route 66 and present Interstate 40. One of the flattest places on earth. DID YOU PLAY FOOTBALL FOR VEGA HIGH? In a high school with a total of maybe 110 students you had to play football if you ever wanted to get a date. We could field a full eleven players and still have maybe four subs. That is how I wound up playing center at 165 pounds. My physical therapist has told me the neck pain that woke me at 3:15 this morning is probably a long-term result of high school football. YOU GRADUATED IN HISTORY FROM TEXAS TECH AT LUBBOCK. LUBBOCK IS THE MOST CRUELLY MALIGNED CITY IN AMERICA. IF IT IS NOT TOO PAINFUL, CAN YOU TELL YOUR FAVORITE LUBBOCK JOKE? In the 60s, the Lubbock Chamber of Commerce distributed bumper stickers with the slogan "LUCKY ME, I LIVE IN LUBBOCK" At the end of that Spring semester, when it was time to go home for the summer, Tech student cars sported their own bumper stickers saying "LUCKY ME, I'M LEAVING LUBBOCK." But during my time there as Ranching Heritage Center Director, 1969 - 72, I found that Lubbock has more civic energy, citizens who are willing to turn out and work on behalf of their community, than any place I have ever seen. There is enormous strength and quality in that. If a surprise event caused me to need volunteers at the Ranching Heritage Center, I could make four phone calls at 8 am and have 30 volunteers on hand at 8 pm. Try doing that in some of the places that like to joke about Lubbock. WHAT WAS THE SUBJECTOF YOUR MASTER'S THESIS AT TEXAS TECH? "Colonel Nelson Appleton Miles in the Red River War of 1874 - 1875." Not a history of great ideas, but a history of events in specific places, which is exactly what National Historic Sites, the National Register, and etc. are all about. YOU WERE DIRECTOR OF THE RANCHING HERITAGE CENTER OF TEXAS TECH. ARE YOU FROM A RANCHING BACKGROUND? Sort of, but not entirely. The terrain of my home county is such that probably 85% of it is not suitable for farming and so has always been ranch land. Both of my parents came from small farming/ranching backgrounds, and most of their siblings remained in those fields. But my Dad tried small-scale dry farming in the wrong place at the wrong time and was soon wiped out by the dust bowl and the great depression. I grew up in town, but most of the work to be had was on farms and ranches. I was not a particularly good cowboy, but was a very good beef cattle judge. As a teenager I wore a black hat with a 5 inch brim and boots with 18 inch tops, sometimes in combination with a tweed sport coat. I also drove around in a 1949 English Ford--before Volkswagen made funny looking little cars commonplace. Perhaps you recognize a strong non-conformist tendency in this. My family was afraid I was going to be a cowboy, but if they had paid attention to that behavior they would have known it was not to be. We tend to think of cowboys as strong individuals, and they are in a way, but actually they conform almost rigidly to what they think other cowboys expect of them. THE COWBOY IS CELEBRATED AS THE GREAT ICONIC HERO OF AMERICA. HOWEVER, ONE TEXAS WRITER, LARRY MC MURTRY, SAYS THE COWBOY MYTH IS THINLY DISGUISED FASCIST PROPAGANDA FOR AN ESENTIALLY FEUDAL WAY OF LIFE AND THE PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC LAND. DO YOU AGREE? I probably would not choose those words, but actually I do agree. The cowboy lives a hard and dangerous life, is poorly paid, is often badly crippled by early middle-age, has few if any benefits and either nothing or only social security for retirement (and he will cuss the government for making him contribute to it). He often develops a strong identification with the cowman (note the difference in the words) for whom he works. He also tends to develop a strong identification with the cowboy myth which, sadly, I think, is more influenced by Hollywood and pulp fiction than by history. However, he also may have a strong identification with the land, which actually gives him something in common with National Park Service types. HAVE YOU MET MR McMURTRY? I knew some of his family but not him. He comes from a family of cowmen, not cowboys, but he understands the culture and occasionally expresses it very well. His early novel Horseman Pass By, which became the movie HUD, with Paul Newman, and The Last Picture Show do the best job of this. YOU SPEND A CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF YOUR NPS CAREER AS HISTORIAN FOR AND KEEPER OF THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. I SUSPECT THE MOST ONEROUS PART OF THE JOB WAS FENDING OFF FRIVOLOUS, IGNOBLE, AND UNWORTH ADDITIONS TO THE REGISTER. WHAT WERE SOME OF THE WIERDER NOMINATIONS? We had a dual mission: one was to broaden the concept of "significance" from the high and limited standard of national significance under the Historic Sites Act of 1935 to a vastly more inclusive standard of local significance under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966; and the other was to demonstrate that even local significance meant there had to be standards. Naturally, the wackiest ones came early, soon after the NHPA, when a lot of the questions to be answered were still without precedent. One guy claimed to have identified the original site of the Garden of Eden, not in Mesopotamia after all, but rather in the eastern part of the state of Oregon. Oklahoma nominated the "Fort Reno Forest Preserve," which had been the woodlot for the 19th century frontier fort, but which in the meantime had become a suburban neighborhood on the west side of Oklahoma City with houses, lawns, and shrubbery rather than anything resembling a forest preserve. One particularly determined and rather admirable person pressed persistently and vigorously for Landmark designation of the site of one of the earliest camps where African-American soldiers had trained for duty in the Civil War. His real goal was to make a National Park Service unit out of it, but it too had long since become a suburban neighborhood of streets, curbs, yards, and houses with almost no trace of the historic past. It still annoys me that the diminished and politically-oriented Advisory Board of the early 90s wanted to go along with him because they were afraid of being called racist. They knew full well it didn't come anywhere close to meeting criteria. One Louisiana fellow wrote requesting a Federal grant to get "soul spirits" out of his historic house. A lot of replicas of historic buildings were proposed, but hardly any were listed. I came from a background of history, and began to work with colleagues who had backgrounds in architecture and archeology. My architectural colleagues clearly understood the concept of "integrity" as it applied to buildings: the building had to be the real thing, preferably never moved, its materials had to be authentic, and its appearance had to be relatively unchanged, etc. But I had a long struggle getting them to see that the same requirements applied to places that were significant because of historical association. A forest preserve still had to possess the materials and characteristics it had when it was significant for being a forest preserve. A battlefield still had to look reasonably like it did when the battle occurred, and would not qualify if it had become a shopping mall. There has to be something tangible to preserve. Otherwise, you should just put up a marker and forget about listing it in the National Register or making it a park. ELVIS PRESLEYÕS GRACELAND FINALLY MADE IT, WITH SECRETARY NORTON IN ATTENDANCE. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? Although I may be the youngest person alive who never much cared for Elvis and his music, I think there is no question about his national significance. I have been to Graceland and I think the NHL designation is correct, but I earnestly hope no one develops a movement to add Graceland to the National Park System. WHAT WERE YOUR GREATEST CHALLENGE/ACCOMPLISHMMENT AS ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR CULTURAL RESOURCEWS? By the time I got that job I had enough experience to understand that I was responsible for getting people over whom I had no authority to do certain things, and to do them according to high standards. This had led me to recognize that my job was to create environments in which other people could succeed. I am not sure I can identify one challenge as the greatest, because there were many. Getting the mainstream National Park Service to understand that cultural resource management was a major part of the NPS mission rather than something it sometimes did when it wasn't too busy running Yellowstone. Conversely, getting my program managers to want to go out and make their programs important to Superintendents. Getting facilities managers to understand that not just any carpenter should be hammering on historic buildings, but simultaneously getting historical architects to see that maintenance people sometimes had, and more often could develop, the degree of expertise needed for professional Cultural Resource Management. Promoting respect for the standards and values of archeology, and getting people to understand that digging sites was one of the last options rather than the first. Accomplishments? Because I was only part of a team, in every case my accomplishments were really the accomplishments of others, but I might list developing systematic approaches to CRM, getting the Curatorial program funded, exporting the Curatorial program to the entire Department of the Interior, developing the Preservation And Skills Training (PAST) program to help maintenance people bootstrap themselves up to "professional" preservation levels, launching the Tribal Cultural Preservation Programs, getting the Ethnographic program going, implementing ARPA and NAGPRA, presiding over the rehabilitation of about 18,000 historic buildings around the country using $22 billion in private sector investment, launching the Civil War Battlefield program, advancing the Cultural Landscapes program, helping to bring a number of "different" kinds of units into the system including Manzanar, Sand Creek, and Washita; and serving as an advocate whenever I could of other parts of the NPS beyond cultural resources. WHICH WAS THE MOST FUN, BEING IN WASHINGTON OR BEING THE SOUTHWEST REGIONAL DIRECTOR? (You will get extra points if you say Washington.) That's easy. Washington. You have to remember that I came to Santa Fe with knowledge beforehand that I would be a Regional Director for a very short time, and that part of my duty was to terminate the Regional status of an office that had proudly held that distinction for 56 years, while at the same time making a significant reduction in FTE and also trying to implement a radically new concept of support offices. All of that was about as much fun as fighting a wowser. YOU WERE NOMINATED THE CHAIR OF DISCOVERY 2000. COULD YOU DESCRIBE ITS GOALS The goal was to develop vision for the National Park Service and all of its closely related natural, cultural, and recreational causes for the 21st Century. Our intent was not to produce a document--that was done a year later by the National Park System Advisory Board--but rather to plant seeds of possibility in the hearts and minds of individuals. We wanted every person present to understand that leadership is his or her individual responsibility--not something we wait to receive from on high. With this in mind we created a conference in which participants learned from one another rather than from a parade of all-knowing speakers. Unfortunately the people who assumed political-level offices four months later held exactly the opposite view and wanted individuals to obey rather than to think or to lead. We can only hope that many people are now relying on their own internal values well enough to survive until the national political environment once again emphasizes possibilities rather than limitations. WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN DOING SINCE RETIREMENT? As for me, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees keeps me busy almost full time. RECENTLY YOU WROTE A CLASSIC ENVIORMENTAL ESSAY ENTITLED "THIS LAND STILL OUR LAND" THAT SUMS UP THE GREEDHEAD ETHOS OF THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATION. WOULD YOU MIND IF WE REPRINTED IT IN THUNDERBEAR? I would be flattered. ART, IT HAS BEEN AN HONOR AND A PLEASURE TALKING WITH YOU! Thank you for the forum! As previous noted, Jerry Rogers has given his permission to reprint an important essay on privatization that was recently published in the March-April 2006 issue of PRESERVATION, The Magazine of the NATIONAL Trust FOR Historic Preservation This Land Is Still Our Land "Privatizing," another dubious creed of the new Gilded Age The 25 years following the Civil War were derisively called the Gilded Age by Mark Twain. Rampant privatization was slowed by financial panics and the rise of progressivism, but not until the Great Depression did it become widely recognized that unrestrained private enterprise could be harmful. Private misuse of land led to catastrophic pollution, erosion, and loss of productivity and community not limited to mines in the West or the homesteaded prairies. The Depression inspired the nation to enact laws to level the economic playing field, protect financial systems, and encourage fair competition. The public estate increased as privately abused lands were repurchased so that harmful practices could be halted and the lands and the ways of life they supported preserved or restored. But memory is short. Today relatively few people are aware that the national grasslands had been turned into the "dust bowl" by private owners, or that steep-slope farming created gullied wastelands that have since been restored into the Shenandoah and Great Smoky Mountains national parks. Now, as in the first Gilded Age, the commonwealth belonging to all Americans is in danger of being converted to a private asset. Political attitudes are controlled by slogansÑ"Government's not the solution, it's the problem"Ñwhile the policies of that same government support the harmful concentration of private wealth at public expense. Virtue is publicly proclaimed while being privately undermined, as the continuing corporate scandals and instances of political corruption now reveal, and public support for governmental action for the good of all is diminished by the work of well-funded "think tanks." Cloaked in a mantle of academic respectability, these creations crank out reports foreordained to undermine support for governmental solutions. Antitax crusaders deprive government of the revenue it needs for success, although we are the least taxed of any developed nation, and then advocate repealing programs on false grounds that government has "failed." The public interest, they contend, resides with individuals in pursuit of immediate personal profit. Unless counteracted, these single-minded organizations, supported by donors who benefit from unrestricted exploitation, will privatize the best of our common heritage. This trend is intimately tied to other attempts to use private enterprise in lieu of needed governmental action. Few dispute the fact that health care is in crisis, yet rather than create a sound system that works for everyone, Congress strains to maximize the private character of the new prescription drug benefit for seniors. The result is a plethora of company options that few can understand. Few dispute the fact that the Social Security Trust Fund needs at least some help, yet months are wasted in attempts to privatize the system, with absolutely no progress made. The public recognizes privatization as a throwback to a pre-1930s, devil-take-the-hindmost approach that works well for big corporations but not for the rest of us, yet such public sentiment cannot prevail over the priorities of a White House and a Congress beholden to special interests. Privatizing initiatives also grind down the country's places of historical depth, physical beauty, and restorative recreation. Last April, the House of Representatives' Committee on Resources held a hearing on the advisability of limiting protection of places eligible for the National Register. In September, the committee's chairman, Richard Pombo (R-CA), included 15 national parks in a list of assets for the Budget Reconciliation Proposal that could be sold to raise revenue. When the suggestion was leaked it disappeared from the bill, and the congressman's staff disavowed the idea as a jokeÑone that is still with us. In November, Pombo and his allies saddled the House budget bill with a provision enabling mining companies to secure private title to public lands of their own selection, which would have had two negative results: publicly owned minerals that are privatized would return to the Treasury far less than their true value, and second, patentees would not have to prove that the lands contain minerals. In other words, such public lands might be secured for luxury homes or other concealed purposes instead of bona fide mining. That provision was subsequently dropped from the budget bill, but this idea, too, is bound to raise its ugly head again. The rogue committee wasn't done. In December the House passed the committee's Gateway Communities Cooperation Act, which would make national park resources subject to local interestsÑeven when contrary to the national interest. And Pombo's Subcommittee on National Parks, with New Mexico's second-district Representative Steve Pearce in the chair, held a hearing to examine preservation provisions in the 1916 act that created the National Park Service. No one believes the intention was to strengthen those provisions. During the hearing, Pearce said, "For 40 years, the preservationists have really infiltrated the national park system." In fact, preservationists have been the core of the Service for 90 years, in accordance with the law that threatened by that hearing, in opposition to the despoilers of the nation's birthright. The parks, historic sites, and other units of the national park system are often described as icons, crown jewels, our best idea, an inalienable heritage. They symbolize the United States almost as much as the flag itself: The falls of Yosemite, the torch of "Lady Liberty," the flag over Fort McHenry all invariably generate feelings of belonging to a great nation, and of sharing treasures owned by all. Within weeks of the carnage at Gettysburg in 1863, a movement was launched to preserve the field of battle in perpetuity. Over the next 53 years a growing number of national parks, battlefields, and monuments gradually coalesced into a generally recognized inalienable heritage belonging to all Americans and to unborn generations. By 1916, when a law created the National Park Service to preserve these places unimpaired forever, they had become ingrained in our nationhood. Today these unique places are under threat from the dangerous, essentially un-American notion that our common national heritage should become the bounty of a few. In the Department of the Interior, a political appointee whose last job was director of a Wyoming Chamber of Commerce secretly redrafted the policies that guide national park managers. Strong words like "preservation" were replaced by weaker words like "conservation." By twisted logic, any activity permitted in a park would become a "purpose" of the parkÑbus tours, commercial guide services, and snack bars would be purposes of Gettysburg. Noisy helicopter flights would be a purpose of Grand Canyon. The Petroglyph National Monument road extension that preservationists fought to prevent would be a purpose of the monument. A revision proposed to the Park Service "Director's Order 21," regulating certain commercial activities in parks, would encourage aggressive courting of corporate donations, offering blatant recognition that would border on the commercial cacophony we now seek to escape by visiting parks and historic sites. Another change asks candidates for midlevel jobs to affirm support for the current political agenda, even though the civil service system was established in 1883 to ensure the hiring of competent professionals. The private sector can already pursue plenty of opportunities in the parks without plundering them. Park concessionaires provide lodging, food, transportation, and other services under regulations that ensure that the private activity serves rather than counteracts the public interest. National historic and natural landmarks and places listed in the National Register mostly remain in private ownership and in economically productive uses. Recognition, grants, tax breaks, and other incentives help owners be good stewards. Unlike national parks, such places can be capital assetsÑviable real estateÑwhile also being preserved. This is why the National Register of Historic Places exists. Since the first national park, Yellowstone, was set aside 134 years ago, fewer than 400 of more than 80,000 places have been preserved in perpetuity through the extraordinary means of adding them to the national park system. The parks are not capital assets and not real estate; they are inalienable national treasures held in trust for 281 million Americans and their descendants. As we now know, privatization began stealthily: Park budgets were severely constricted; volunteers replaced professional employees; specialists were threatened with replacement by generalized counterparts from the private sector; research conclusions contrary to commercial interests were denounced and restudied. We have reached the stage where national interests in the parks could soon be subordinated to those of businesses. Philanthropy may soon be accepted in return for advertising in the parks or other favors. Strong, clear policy is being exchanged for weaker, less precise language easier to get around. And finally, a powerful congressional committee chairman "jokes" about selling off the parks. Alarm bells should be going off in every part of the country. Near the end of a lifetime of preserving special places, John Muir reluctantly concluded that "nothing dollarable is safe, however guarded." The subject is far broader than national parks, but it cannot successfully be addressed without starting with them. We must reestablish the nation on an enlightened course for preservation and the sensible use and enjoyment of our national treasures. Half a century ago, few would have imagined the priority we now give to space exploration, medicine, and airline travel; the same attention can be given to landscapes, history, architecture, archaeology, and culture in general. Why not use the 100th birthday of the National Park Service in 2016 not just to fend off the takers, but also to launch a century of real historic and environmental preservation? THE PROFESSIONALS Say that you are a Law Enforcement Ranger assigned to Petrified Forest National Park. A ranger at Crystal Forest, using a spotting scope, radios you that the owner of a blue Lexus has put a large chunk of petrified wood in his trunk. You stop the blue Lexus and ask the driver if he happened to have picked up any petrified wood from the park. The driver vehemently denies it. You ask if you might take a quick look through his trunk. He agrees to the search. You find the Petrified Wood under a blanket. Pretty much open and shut. You haul out your citation book. You did notice one thing during the search. There was a BUSH-CHENEY sticker on the rear bumper. Now neighbors, you are a FLETC grad and a LE ranger and as such, you are a reasonably devout Republican. However, this is Arizona and you are an admirer of Senator John McCain and his (relatively) populist and environmental stand on issues. The Perp begins to give you a bad time about the citation and you are not exactly on his side to begin with. Glancing at the BUSH-CHENEY sticker, you remark "It's Greedheads like you that give Republicans a bad name!" The violator becomes apoplectic! "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?" You cluck sympathetically and say "Sir, if you're suffering from short term memory loss, you will find your name and address on your copy of the citation. Please drive safely and have a nice day!" Now neighbors, have we made a friend for the National Parks and the Environment? Possibly not. Readers might consider the above scenario a bit far-fetched and over the top. After all, we all know better than to editorialize about the moral deficiencies of miscreants, commonly known as "rubbing it in." Veteran law enforcement officers will point out that needlessly taunting the person you are going to cite or arrest is not only unprofessional, but can be hazardous to your career or even your health. Should the suspect ever get the idea that you are getting your personal jollies off on his/her predicament, they will do their best to get even. This can range from throwing a punch to writing a dread "Congressional" to their representative. Your life is bound to get more complicated than it was before you launched that "witty" remark! So that's why this sort of thing never happens....or does it? It has been bought to my attention (love that phrase!) that certain federal land managers and their minions are not exactly neutral and professional in their contacts with certain elements of the population. It seems that certain of these land managers have been calling taxpayers who like to hike, walk, backpack or simply sit and contemplate Nature by the pejorative term of "elitist." Now "elitist" is a right wing Greedhead word used to describe environmentalists. True, it's a free country and it's O.K. for private citizens or corporations to use that term. However, it is NOT O.K when a tax payer supported, uniformed public servant uses the word "elitist" as part of a gratuitous little lecture on Greedhead values on behalf of his Greedhead masters. This is particularly onerous when the environmentalist is (quite literally) a "captive" audience and cannot respond lest he/she flunk the "attitude test" and possibly have the fine increased. A case in point is that of Christina Wallace. It seems that Ms Wallace is a thorn in side of US Forest Service managers. She is a bit of a scofflaw in the line of Gandhi, ML King, Henry David Thoreau, and other criminals. She refuses to pay a fee to walk through that part of God's Creation that is currently being "managed" by Coronado National Forest outside of Tucson, Arizona... After politely accepting each citation Ms Wallace tells the citing officer that she has no intention of paying the fine as she believes (as many do) that these fees are uncalled for and more importantly, are a Trojan Horse to introduce the concept of privatization of public lands. Upon hearing the lady's argument, one Forest Service Officer hissed at her "YOU'RE NOTHING BUT AN ELITIST!" Well yes. That is one definition of "elitist," particularly if you are deep into Orwellian Newspeak, where words mean the reverse of the original; up is down, black is white and simplicity is elitist. In that strange looking glass world, a "Common Man" is someone who drags expensive fuel driven toys into a natural area in a $50,000 Humvee. Recently, an acquaintance of mine, the eminent ecologist, Dr. Owen Hoffman, got into an e-mail exchange with a National Park Service superintendent who was responsible for a small NPS unit in the Southwest. The subject was how best to manage for the diverse expectations of the park visitor. Dr. Hoffman took the position that the NPS should be at the forefront in assertively promoting less consumptive uses of park resources like hiking, tent camping, bird watching and star gazing. The NPS should encourage park visitors to get out of their cars, recreational vehicles, and motor homes to obtain a lasting memory of a high-quality park experience. "You are obviously an elitist!" was the rather surly reply from the superintendent. This will not do, neighbors You as a public official may not interject your personal bias into your government work. For example, should the new Secretary of the Interior Dick Kempthorne visit your park, it is unfair (and perhaps unwise) to introduce him as "A well known Greedhead and friend of Dubya's. " It is unprofessional of you to speculate on the honorable gentleman's economic philosophy or how he got his job. Remember! A public servant must be professional in Thought, Deed Ðand Dictionary! THE SAFETY MESSAGE Ah! You've found what you were looking for; the Safety Message! The Thunderbear Safety Message has become a vital part of the monthly routine of NPS Safety Officers and your editor apologizes for not always getting the Word out in a timely manner. One park Safety Officer even sent a poem describing his plight Here I sit so very bored Looking for #267 to get me revved and floored As Safety Officer of this park I need that Safety Spark Why so long between issues do you lag? To get out a copy of your mag? So with patience I'll wait awhile Because for your rag, I'd walk a mile! Touching! Indeed the superintendent of a major Western Park asked your kindly editor to get on the stick as his "troops were dying in the trenches" for lack of a timely infusion of safety information. As noted, we apologize and will try to do better: Now on to Safety! Mark Twain once observed that custom and courtesy are very strange things: "If a man invites you to take a walk with him, you can say that you are too tired. Should a man invite you to dinner, you can say that you have just eaten. If a man asks you to have a drink with him, you can say it is against your religion. However, if a man asks you to fight him, then you must oblige him." This seems to be the case with the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. He is a bit of a safety problem. He has mentioned on several occasions that a world without Israel and the United States would be a very desirable thing. How does he know this to be true? Well, God told him. Now neighbors, as someone who has frequent conversations with a ten foot tall, beer drinking flying bear, I certainly sympathize with President Ahmedinejad. We who hear voices and see visions are frequently misunderstood by the unblessed. On the other hand, Thunderbear has never suggested that anyone be harmed. President Ahmedinejad has embarked on a famously ambitious nuclear research program. He has also developed intermediate ballistic missiles that can reach as far as India or England and has one on the drawing board that will reach you known where. Most interestingly, Iran has successfully tested its "Whale" torpedo. A high speed (223 mph) torpedo that, according to the Iranians "No ship or submarine can avoid." The US Navy undoubtedly begs to differ, but the operational existence of this undersea missile will give some pause to carrier operations in the Persian Gulf. Now the question arises is where does Iran get the money to pay for all of these toys. After all, the second and third largest exports of Iran are Pistachio nuts and Persian rugs. You never knew there was so much money to be made in nuts and rugs? Neither did I . Other folks suggest that the money may come from the number one Iranian export, oil. The US has a real addiction to the stuff. So, perhaps for safety reasons, we should stop funding the Iranian war machine through the purchase of oil. Might be a good idea, friends. Vice President Cheney, playing his usual Dr. Evil role, remarked contemptuously that conservation of natural resources was simply a matter of "personal virtue" and had no effect on the Big Picture. That is not true. "Personal virtue" or conservation will be a part of national survival. It is true that oil is not going to run out anytime soon. There is enough of it to last an unfortunately long time. The reason it is unfortunate is that most of this oil will be in hands of certifiable crazies like President Ahmedinejad. So what to do for safety's sake? Well, Cheney to the contrary, there is always personal virtue that is conservation. Conservation can even be amusing. What we would like you to do is to entertain yourself. Call up your local Ford dealership. Tell the eager sales rep that you would like to buy a Ford automobile (Pretty logical; that's what they're selling, isn't it.?). Tell him or her that no, you are not interested in the heaviest testosterone fueled SUV or pick up truck. You actually want to buy the Ford Reflex, that interesting diesel/electric hybrid that gets 50 miles per gallon of refined Burger King cooking oil or some other biodiesel source other than the Middle East. The sales rep will stammer a bit and tell you that the Reflex, like Jesus, is Coming, it's just not known exactly When. This is not a good answer, neighbors. Unlike Jesus, the Reflex is made of nuts and bolts and plastic and electronics, a very tangible package. It should not be difficult to predict an Arrival date. In fact, Bill Ford, president of Ford Motors has promised 250,000 hybrids a year by 2010. It's our job to help Bill make the Reflex happen, neighbors Continue to press the sales rep, tell him that you want to put a $100 down on your Reflex so that you can be the first kid in your block to have one. (Note: Do NOT use government time or phones to run this experiment; it is illegal and if the guy at Ford does not have a sense of humor, he can easily trace the source of the call.) Now friends, I realize that it is American automotive engineering and American attention to detail that has made Toyota the number one automobile company in the world, but this one time, we want you to buy American. We realize one or more of the wheels may come off, or the thing may not start initially, but eventually the wheels will stay on and it will start and you will save energy. Now then, if you are not on friendly terms with the manager of your local Burger King or MacDonald's, you are going to need a source of diesel (or if you prefer driving a car powered by a gasoline/ethanol blend, you are going to need a steady source of that fuel). That is, how do you obtain a steady source of automotive fuel that does not come from Petroleum and thus from people who hate and despise us. Surprisingly enough, President Bush suggested such a plan in his State of the Union speech when he envisioned an alternative fuel based on corn grown by Republican farmers in the Midwest. Actually his other suggestion, that switch grass, along with other cellulose based raw ingredients, is the better biofuel idea, as than corn. Switch grass is a perennial grass, unlike corn and thus does not require the chemical coddling that corn requires, nor the vast energy input that very nearly cancels out the energy value of corn based ethanol, not to mention the environmental degradation of a corn monoculture. According to the US Department of Energy, cellulose ethanol derived from wood chips, agricultural waste, or perennial grasses, reduces greenhouse gases 85% over gasoline while ethanol derived from fermented corn reduces greenhouse gases by only 18 to 29%. Well now, neighbors! What we need is a modern equivalent of the Manhattan Project or the Normandy Invasion Plan to pull off energy independence, right? Yup! Except for one thing. For energy independence to happen, the price of fossil crude must not be allowed to drop below 40 dollars a barrel. At that price or above, diesel and gasoline produced from coal or natural gas, or ethanol from crops or agricultural or forest waste, is economically viable. Now that seems as easy as getting a beer in a brewery as crude has recently topped $70 a barrel and shows no sign of declining, However, there is a glitch. Recently, Vinod Khosia, the Indian born Silicon Valley billionaire and venture capitalist, who got President Bush excited about Cellulosic Ethanol was taken aside by a sympathetic fellow billionaire, a Saudi Arabian Prince. The Prince gently reminded Mr.Khosia that it costs the Saudis only $1.00 to pump that barrel of crude they charge us $70. Thus they could put crude on the market at well below $40. A barrel, JUST long enough to destroy any alternative energy source and STILL make a modest profit. Fortunately there is an antidote to this economic judo. All Congress and the President need to do are establish a tax on any imported oil that falls below $40 a barrel. This will prevent the Saudis, President Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chavez from strangling the infant alternative fuel industry in its cradle. But would this be legal? Probably not. Due to a number of treaties signed by Bush's back slapping predecessor, such a "tariff" would technically be "illegal." But never fear! The saving grace of this Administration is that they can "negotiate" around any law. (Consider the attempt at "updating" the NPS Organic Act until someone caught them at it.) So your assignment as park safety officer for this month will be to: Call your local Ford dealer (on your own time) and order up Reflex diesel hybrid (and report any creative excuses to THUNDERBEAR for publication AND Write a letter to your Congressperson, noting that it is an election year and you are interested in energy independence and would like to see fossil petroleum guaranteed at $40 or more a barrel and a "Manhattan Project" type of funding for alternative fuel. THUNDERBEAR will print the most interesting response. See you next time, and remember Safety and Energy Independence is Everyone's job! HAWAII (continued) You will remember that in issue #266, we had left your esteemed editor hiking "illegally" down a country lane on the Big Island of Hawaii, in search of the majestic 1450 high Hi'Illawe waterfall. Why "illegally?" Matter of principle, neighbors! The waterfall is on public land and is accessed by a public trail. The problem is that the public trail is reached by a half mile of road through private property. Recently, the owners of the property had erected a stout six foot tall wooden gate across the road and festooned it with more chains and padlocks than those that bound Harry Houdini. In addition, they placarded the gate with signs forbidding entry and quoting the Hawaii State and County Trespass statutes and resulting penalties. While Hawaii Trespass regs are not as draconian as those of Texas (Death by Winchester), they could extend the stay of the tourist in accommodations he had not planned on booking. The principle at hand was whether these folks had the right to deny access to public land. Was the possibility of jail worth the test of principle? Like Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, I was beginning to have second thoughts about the wisdom of the project. What if the property owners proved violent, sort of a Hawaiian version of those folks in the classic film "Deliverance"? However, we were over the fence and now committed. Might as well forge on until something happened. I hoped there wouldn't be dogs. You can't win with dogs in a trespass situation. (That is the general idea, partners.) We did bring along trekking poles, ostensibly for hiking, but mainly to fend off dogs and avoid getting bitten. On the other hand, if you kill or maim somebody's dog, you are, as the elder Bush would say, in deep doo-doo. Killing somebody's huntin' dog in Texas ranks above wife stealing as grounds for reciprocal homicide. I was not sure how Hawaii stood on Man's Best Friend. However, as an outsider, my odds would not be good. I could visualize the article in the local newspaper "Tourist kills canine companion of lonely bedridden local veteran." "Of course I killed the old man's dog! It growled at me!" witnesses stated overhearing the tourist, identified as PJ Ryan, mainland environmental elitist and troublemaker, remarking contemptuously to investigating officers. Perhaps I would be ahead of the game to allow the dogs to partially devour me and hope for the sympathy vote. But there were no dogs. Indeed there were no people in sight; only their little homes. Ted Turner and Sam Walton did not live here. These were the homes of Hawaii's rural working folks. Apparently both male and female were off doing just that: working. There was no one in sight. So far, so good. We even encountered a party of fellow lawbreakers; returning hikers. They allowed as how the waterfall was "magnificent" and "certainly worth the effort." No mention of vigilantes, sheriff's deputies or shotgun wielding private property fanatics. Again, so far, so good! It was my hope that Hawaii's trespass laws and ideas about private property were not as fanatical as those of Texas. I recalled a hilariously funny Site Bulletin issued by Amistad National Recreation Area down in Texas on the dangers of shooting the rapids of the Devil's River, a tributary of the Rio Grande. The rapids were unpredictable, but so were the local Texas land owners. It was generally agreed that the river itself was public property, the banks were private property and the river bottom open to dispute; therefore, if you capsized your kayak, it might be best to float down through the rapid rather than stand up or stagger out of the river, until you reached the public land of Amistad NRA. "It is best not to debate Texas Riparian Law if the landowner has a Winchester." was the wise and sober advice of the Site Bulletin. Texas trespass laws are some of the most extreme in the nation. Unfortunately, with the proposed sell off of public land by the Bush Administration, there is some indication that Texas land use may become the norm. You see, most land in Texas is private. Indeed, Texas has less public land than any other state west of the Mississippi. In proportion to size and population, Texas has less acreage in public lands such as state parks and public hunting than any other state. If you like to bike, hike, hunt and fish, life can get downright claustrophobic in the Great State of Texas if you don't have much in the line of money or friends that do. Not that hunting is discouraged. Indeed, most Texas ranches make as much or more off selling hunting rights as they do off cattle. Moreover, you can hunt all sorts of exotic game animals that are raised for just that purpose. If you have the money, Texas has the species. Naturally, the landowner wants to know exactly who you are and where you are on his property, what you plan to hunt and when you plan to enter and leave; for safety's sake, if nothing else. It is assumed that your check will be good. Obviously, this European style of hunting in the Grand Seignior tradition fills a niche. Trouble is, the Texas Land Ethic may be exported to the rest of the U.S if public land privatization goes through. Recently, there was an excellent opportunity to bring this topic up for public debate, but the opportunity was muffed by the stupidity of the liberal media. We are referring to the Vice President's unfortunate hunting accident. You will recall that Vice President Cheney was quail hunting on a ranch in South Texas when he accidentally "peppered" his long time friend, Texas lawyer Harry Whittington with birdshot. Now it is true that the "peppering" was quite severe, with several pellets penetrating Mr. Whittington's heart. Despite being shot through the heart, Mr. Whittington was up and around in a few days (leading to a replenishment in the nation's supply of lawyer jokes). And that, neighbors, should have been that; an unfortunate hunting accident which turned out as well as could be expected. Except for the Washington Press Corps, who managed to ask all the wrong questions. Like most of you, I watched the White House spokesperson, Scott McClellan field these questions on TV. The reporters affected those hard, cold sneers that liberal reporters always affect when they're trying to look tough and believe they are asking tough questions. Now there are exceptions, but most liberals do not like guns or hunting (or Dick Cheney) and their questions reflected an ignorance of at least two of the three subjects. They querulously asked repetitive questions on how the Vice President could shoot an old man, whether he had the proper stamp for his hunting license, whether he had been drinking; whether the owners of the ranch were Republicans; whether Cheney had taken a hunter safety course and so on. I was desperately waiting, begging for one of them to ask a pertinent question It was not to be. I watched the imperturbable Scott McClellan. I believed I could read his mind. He seemed to be thinking: "I cannot believe my luck! These people are dumb as quail poop! All I have to do is stand here and politely answer their stupid, inane questions in a calm, measured voice, and soon people's sympathy will switch to the Vice President because it will look like the left wing Press Corps is piling on! Tucker Carlson is right! It's like shooting fish in a barrel!" And so it was. No admirer of the Vice President, I found myself thinking "YEA, DICK!" and SIC 'EM, SCOTT! Dick Cheney was escaping this potential public relations debacle "Scott Free!" (Couldn't resist that!) So what questions should have been asked, smart guy! Well now, suppose instead of the NEW YORK TIMES or the WASHINGTON POST reporters, there had been a local reporter who knew how to fry the frijoles and ask the right questions: Someone like Jackie Sue Puckett of the TEXAS CLARION-EAGLE ("Crusading Voice of Deaf Smith County"). Ms Puckett is tall, honey blonde, honey voiced and has been charmin' the boys ever since she was a Kilgore College Rangerette not too many years ago. This is her first appearance at a White House Press Conference. As a respite from the scowling, middle aged Yankee reporters, and to provide viewers with some scenic value, Scott calls on Jackie Sue. Big mistake. "Jackie Sue Puckett of the TEXAS CLARION- EAGLE, Scott! Ah'm so proud to be here! (Dazzling smile) Ah jess wanted to ask a few questions 'bout that Armstrong Ranch where the accident took place. Ah understand that the Vice President was shooting' pen raised quail. Sounds like you had to be guests of the Armstrongs to do so?" Scott allows as how this is the custom in Texas. Jackie Sue asks why the Vice President didn't hunt on public land? Scott cites security concerns, but is forced to admit there isn't much public land in Texas. Jackie Sue is most persistent. "Suppose Joe Don and Billy Dean, two good ol' boys who work at Wal Mart in Corpus Christi wanted to go quail huntin' and showed up at the Armstrong Ranch. What would a day of quail huntin' cost them?" Scott has no idea as that is not his job. Jackie Sue has done her homework, however. "Scott, the average cost of a day's quail huntin' in that part of South Texas is around $1,000 a day per person, cocktails included. Now unless the Armstrong Ranch has an "Early Bird Special" for Wal-Mart employees, Joe Don an' Billy Dean are gonna have tah put in a heap a overtime at Wal-Mart to pay for that quail huntin'. Scott get a bit flustered and wonders if this line of questioning is relevant to the shooting issue. Jackie Sue believes it is and perseveres. "Scott, is it true that Vice President Cheney is a member of the Cato Institute, a right wing Republican Think Tank whose goal is to privatize all public land in the United States so that the Texas Land Use ethic would prevail nationwide and nobody could step outdoors to hike, hunt, fish, or even pass gas without the permission of some private land baron? Scott is getting a bit testy and says that line of questioning is impertinent. "Jess askin' Scott!" Jackie Sue grins mischievously. Now neighbors, Scott would be correct. Jackie Sue's questions would be cruel and unfair, but then, so is the Bush Administration. Fortunately, for the Bush Administration, Jackie Sue Puckett and the TEXAS CLARION- EAGLE are entirely part of the THUNDERBEAR cast of imaginary characters. More's the pity! Perhaps the NEW YORK TIMES should hire Molly Ivins to cover public land use issues. So far, things were going well for our Hawaiian hike. Your editor is non confrontational by nature and if it is possible to hike and not go to jail, he will definitely prefer that possibility. I was relieved to see that public land was now in sight. A rusty gate without a padlock led into a luxurious rain forest. (The private land had been cut over for pasture.) We passed through the gate and experienced a bit of that frisson of relief that must have been felt by WWII refugees crossing into Switzerland. Unless you have some sort of European Usufruct system, then you really need public land and public trail! The trail took on a Lost World look, a winding trail through a glistening rain forest with two or three canopies or under stories, with a tree, shrub or plant fitted neatly into every ecological jigsaw puzzle, with epiphytes piggy backing on the arboreal First Families; not an inch of precious sunlight. The trail, originally a mule track, led past what might be called agricultural archeological site, rusting pieces of who knows what, part of turn of the last century machines, abandoned aqueducts and ditches, all hauled up here and/or constructed by successive generations of plantation workers from half a dozen Asian nations. (TO BE CONTINUED)

Return HOME

© Copyright 2006 by P. J. Ryan, all rights reserved.

PJ Ryan can be reached at:
thunderbear@erols. com.