"Gene Cottrell" wrote in message
...
Before writing to the NPS, I suggest that you read the whole change
document. The editorial referred to says:
"The draft removes language that refers to the 1916 law as beginning with
a "mandate to conserve park resources and values" and proceeds from there
to reduce, remove or de-emphasize the duty to protect park resources for
future generations as the primary purpose of the National Park Service."

In reallity, the new wording is much better and strengthens the document
for conservation:
""to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the
wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such
manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment
of future generations." Through this mandate, Congress established the
overarching mission for national parks, which is to protect park resources
and values to ensure that these resources and values are maintained in as
good, or better, condition for the enjoyment of present and future
generations."

It appears the poster and the editor "Bush Haters" who will stoop at
anything to discredit his administration, even lie as indicated above. I
didn't have time to read the whole document yet, but so far I've only seen
things that improve the conservation of our National Parks. In any event,
President Bush did not write the document.

Read it, and make up your own mind, don't take someone elses word for it,
and make a horse's ass out of yourself.

Gene Cottrell


You have read the entire document then and have the expertise to fully
comprehend the legal wording and the full impact those changes have on the
NPS? I'm impressed - considering that some of the best legal minds in the
country are wrestling over those very words.

You may want to read this opinion before saying the document changes are for
the better.

http://www.georgewright.org/ Click on the link for the PDF file - top,
center.

I did not read the entire 296 pages of the comparative summary written by
NPS but only about 100 pages but I certainly got the flavor. The original
document has been weakened and GWS makes excellent points in their summary
that you may want to consider. It can be argued - and most certainly will
be - why are these changes necessary in the first place?

As for Bush, I don't hate him - just wish he would leave quitely. We can
get by quite nicely without him...

Bob S.