Love a NATIONAL PARK?

If you can understand the difference between Dollywood and Great Smoky
Mountains NP or between Disneyland and Yosemite NP, then it's time for you
to act to help protect that difference


Here is a link to an editorial in my local newspaper briefly explaining what
is happening

http://tinyurl.com/9pe4j


Here is a link to the NPS website where you can get the full text of
proposed changes ..

there is also a link where you can comment ...... please ACT NOW, comments
close 2/18/06

http://tinyurl.com/7qvop


and here is another site with good resources on this proposed change

http://www.npsretirees.org/

As I said in another thread we can thank Cabelas for contributing to
the decline. Maby there going to buy a park and make Cabelaland with
canned hunts.

"Larry L"


If you can understand the difference between Dollywood and Great Smoky
Mountains NP or between Disneyland and Yosemite NP, then it's time for you
to act to help protect that difference



I forgot a snail mail address for you to send comments

Bernard Fagan, Room 7252
National Park Service Office of Policy
1849 C St. N.W.
Washington, DC
20240

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


"Larry L" wrote in message
...

"Larry L"


If you can understand the difference between Dollywood and Great Smoky
Mountains NP or between Disneyland and Yosemite NP, then it's time for
you to act to help protect that difference



I forgot a snail mail address for you to send comments

Bernard Fagan, Room 7252
National Park Service Office of Policy
1849 C St. N.W.
Washington, DC
20240

"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.

"Gene Cottrell" wrote


It appears the poster and the editor "Bush Haters" who will stoop at
anything to discredit his administration, even lie as indicated above.


I downloaded and read much of the comparison.pdf listed first on the NPS
page BEFORE posting ... now, don't lie ...did you? I found some things
that did seem better, some that didn't and zero explanation of why now for
changes. If you read, for instance, the input of the Lassen Park
management you will have seen that one of the biggest issues here is the
'railroading' of changes through, without the kind of long review with
public and congressional input that has occurred in these updates in the
past.

I admit to not trusting this administration, but that is because of the many
things they have intentionally snuck past the public, late on Fridays. If
what you are doing is the "right thing" why be sneaky about it? If this
administration had proven trustworthy, I would.


And, FWIW, I would post the same message if this was the Clinton
administration making these changes .... I honestly do not believe I am the
one around here stooping the lowest for partisan reasons ...

have the kinda day you 'honestly' deserve

"Gene Cottrell" wrote in message
...
...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

Read it or not (assuming that you can), as you please. And then say what
you will about it. It makes no difference. You've already painted yourself
unmistakably. And we thank you.

Wolfgang
who knows that the opposition, composed as it is primarily of idiots, can
safely be dismissed. it's all the idiots on one's own side that are
eternally (and all too often fatally) troublesome.

"Larry L" wrote in message
...

"Gene Cottrell" wrote


It appears the poster and the editor "Bush Haters" who will stoop at
anything to discredit his administration, even lie as indicated above.


I downloaded and read much of the comparison.pdf listed first on the NPS
page BEFORE posting ... now, don't lie ...did you? I found some things
that did seem better, some that didn't and zero explanation of why now for
changes. If you read, for instance, the input of the Lassen Park
management you will have seen that one of the biggest issues here is the
'railroading' of changes through, without the kind of long review with
public and congressional input that has occurred in these updates in the
past.

I admit to not trusting this administration, but that is because of the
many
things they have intentionally snuck past the public, late on Fridays. If
what you are doing is the "right thing" why be sneaky about it? If this
administration had proven trustworthy, I would.


And, FWIW, I would post the same message if this was the Clinton
administration making these changes .... I honestly do not believe I am
the
one around here stooping the lowest for partisan reasons ...

have the kinda day you 'honestly' deserve

As I said in my post, I have not read the whole thing, yet. All I was
pointing out was that the editorial was a lie and that before anyone wrote
in, they should read the whole document. The one and single specific change
that the editorial mentioned, was a lie. The change not only included all
that was removed, but strengthened it. If there were parts that the writer
thought were bad, he should have pointed them out, but he didn't. So, why
should I, or anyone, put any credence to anything he says? As I said in the
original post, read it yourself, and decide if you want to write to the NPS,
but don't go by a liars account.

Gene

Much snippage below


On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:08:13 GMT, "none" wrote:


"Gene Cottrell" wrote in message
...
Before writing to the NPS, I suggest that you read the whole change
document.


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.

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.

Bob S.

Hmmm...lessee here...as of my reply, none of the prior posters had read
the entire thing, one alleges that some of the best legal minds are
wrestling over it and tacitly admits that he doesn't understand it (but
claims that he "got the flavor"), and all offered their opinions and/or
the opinions of others that give partisan support to their announced
opinion as "the only real truth of the matter." However, all indicate
that it must be read for oneself to really understand it and form an
objective opinion, while simultaneously claiming that the thence-gained
understanding can only result in agreement with their opinion (which, by
their own stated "rules," would have been formed prematurely and without
complete understanding).

Fellas, if y'all aren't semi-retired. marginally successful civil
litigators now devoted to your positions in major political party
leadership roles, you've missed your calling...thankfully...

....and ya just gotta love the premise that bureaucrats are gonna ****
things up by not allowing more bureaucracy to oversee the bureaucrats
trying to **** up the bureaucracy by cutting down on bureaucracy...

Well, good luck and all,
R

wrote:
Much snippage below


On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:08:13 GMT, "none" wrote:


"Gene Cottrell" wrote in message
...
Before writing to the NPS, I suggest that you read the whole change
document.


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.

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.

Bob S.

Hmmm...lessee here...as of my reply, none of the prior posters had read
the entire thing, one alleges that some of the best legal minds are
wrestling over it and tacitly admits that he doesn't understand it (but
claims that he "got the flavor"), and all offered their opinions and/or
the opinions of others that give partisan support to their announced
opinion as "the only real truth of the matter." However, all indicate
that it must be read for oneself to really understand it and form an
objective opinion, while simultaneously claiming that the thence-gained
understanding can only result in agreement with their opinion (which, by
their own stated "rules," would have been formed prematurely and without
complete understanding).

Fellas, if y'all aren't semi-retired. marginally successful civil
litigators now devoted to your positions in major political party
leadership roles, you've missed your calling...thankfully...

...and ya just gotta love the premise that bureaucrats are gonna ****
things up by not allowing more bureaucracy to oversee the bureaucrats
trying to **** up the bureaucracy by cutting down on bureaucracy...

Well, good luck and all,
R

All you gotta know is that Bush is doing it. If it's being done by a
lying cheating thief it's a lying cheating dihonest act. If it looks
like a duck, quacks etc.
The parks were intended to preserve areas not to give fat aggie
fratboys a place to ride their snowmobiles and suvs while eating
corndogs and drinking slurplies.