And yet things are not so quiet. At the end of November, 25 former
high-level park managers called on Fran Mainella, the head of the National Park
Service, to abandon the effort to revise park policies. The letter argued that
the planned revisions "are a drastic and dangerous departure from a
longstanding national consensus," which is another way of saying that the
revisions would favor recreation and commercialism at the expense of the park's
historical (and central) mission of preservation.
In mid-December, Steve Pearce, head of the National Parks Subcommittee of
the House Resources Committee, held hearings to examine the legal and
legislative foundation of the parks. The hearing was inconclusive - an
opportunity for both sides to get their views on record. But Mr. Pearce plans
to hold another round of hearings in February, about the time that the public
comment period on the new management policies comes to a close.
Our question is simply this: What has changed - besides the occupants of the
White House and their political appointees at the Interior Department - that
warrants a re-examination of the basic tenets on which the national parks rest?
The answer, of course, is nothing.
We have no doubt that the American people, who overwhelmingly approve their
experience of the parks, will soundly reject these proposed revisions during
the comment period. But we have every doubt that the Interior Department will
pay much attention. Officials at Interior are fond of saying that the parks
can't be governed by a popularity contest. But in this case, the public's
wishes are in complete accord with the history of the parks, with the
principles of their founding and with the experience of the professionals who
have devoted their lives to them.
If Congress wants to help the chronically underfinanced national parks, the
answer is simple. Send money, and leave them alone.