"Our National Parks in Peril?"

[Jack Tarlin]

Maybe if the PATC stopped building $30,000 shelters that look like yuppie condos with a wall missing, well maybe if they stopped spending their money on frivolous s*** like this, then they wouldn't have to raise the fees on their cabins. I mean, no kidding, a few of their shelters are very handsome indeed, but is this sort of extravagance necessary?

I don't think so.

[MOWGLI]

Maybe if the PATC stopped building $30,000 shelters that look like yuppie condos with a wall missing, well maybe if they stopped spending their money on frivolous s*** like this, then they wouldn't have to raise the fees on their cabins.

The increase in PATC cabin rates has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with shelters. It also has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with frivolous spending.

[Lone Wolf]

The increase in PATC cabin rates has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with shelters. It also has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with frivolous spending.

Don't dare question Jack. His little watch dog Dew will come out of the woodwork and bite your azz.

[Jack Tarlin]

Don't get so agitated, Mowgli, it's unhealthy.

I was merely making the point that the PATC has a history of spending its money in interesting---and frequently unnecessary---ways.

Some of its facilities are showcases worthy of Architectural Digest, others are neglected dumps.

Guess which ones are the places the Club usually has its bar-b-ques, picnics, and private events?

[MOWGLI]

Don't get so agitated, Mowgli, it's unhealthy.

Well, I'm not agitated. Not a even a little bit. And I happen to agree with you about some of the PATC shelters. Look at the photo and my comment about the Ed Garvey Shelter in my gallery.

I just wanted correct a wildly speculative comment. I've come to expect no less of you.

PATC does a lot of land acquisition to protect trail corridors. They do some really good stuff, and I hate to see it suggested that they're pissing away money.

[Jack Tarlin]

You agree with me about some of their shelters (presumably you're referring to the extravagance of their design and construction), but then you say that you resent the suggestion or implication that they piss away some of their money.

Am I the only one who sees a conflict here?

Seems to me if you're spending 30K on a Trail shelter, that is perhaps money that can be used for more important things.

[MOWGLI]

You agree with me about some of their shelters (presumably you're referring to the extravagance of their design and construction), but then you say that you resent the suggestion or implication that they piss away some of their money.

I supported the shelters before I voted against the shelters.

[hopefulhiker]

BioProspecting? What is this? Does anyone know anything about this change?

The National Park Service (NPS) has unveiled its plans to allow commercial bioprospecting in the National Parks. Under the plan, the Park Service will allow private corporations to extract and make money from organisms taken from the national parks, including millions of acres of wilderness areas.

The term that NPS uses to describe the new commercial arrangements is "Benefits-Sharing." The document NPS put out for comment, technically called a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), follows a seven-year-old court order obtained by public interest advocates opposed to the "commercialization of the commons" forcing NPS to do an environmental review leading to the DEIS first published on September 22, 2006.

"This is, sadly, another step along the path of turning our national treasures into corporate booty," said Beth Burrows, Director of the Edmonds Institute (EI), one of the plaintiffs in the original lawsuit over this matter. "We support scientific research in the parks, but we are against commercializing the parks and their wildlife." "Legally the National Park System is not set up to be a commercial resource base, but the Administration seems dead set in favor of opening up the parks to commercial extraction," stated Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), another of the plaintiffs in the original lawsuit over bioprospecting in the Parks.

[halftime]

BioProspecting? What is this? Does anyone know anything about this change?

The National Park Service (NPS) has unveiled its plans to allow commercial bioprospecting in the National Parks.

The document NPS put out for comment, technically called a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS),

Interesting. Is there a link to this publication?

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

NPS page on bioprospecting

As for the info I read that was against this practice, the problem stems from the theft of local knowledge about healing plants by drug companies without compensation. None said anything about adverse effects on the area 'mined'.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

Interestingly the photo illustration in the Michael Melford interview (video 2)is if of Clingman's Dome area of SMNP. This photo can also be viewed in the photo gallery page along with others. This particular photo illustrates the devestation of the forest area by insect infestation. I have not been there to see this but many of you may be familiar with this situation.

I heard where there is a dispute between the state of North Carolina and the Tennesse Valley Authorithy( a federal program) about the air pollution that is affecting the GSNP. I think that the state of NC is bringing legal action against the TVA...

The Clingman's Dome area was in trouble due to acid rain long before the pine bettle infestation.

TVA is an energy company that has many coal-fired facilities to generate electricity. The organization is one of the major polluters in the area and they are indeed being sued by NC - the state which receives the majority of the toxic by-products due to the way the jet stream works.

[Chip]

BioProspecting? What is this? Does anyone know anything about this change?

The National Park Service (NPS) has unveiled its plans to allow commercial bioprospecting in the National Parks. Under the plan, the Park Service will allow private corporations to extract and make money from organisms taken from the national parks, including millions of acres of wilderness areas.

The term that NPS uses to describe the new commercial arrangements is "Benefits-Sharing." The document NPS put out for comment, technically called a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), follows a seven-year-old court order obtained by public interest advocates opposed to the "commercialization of the commons" forcing NPS to do an environmental review leading to the DEIS first published on September 22, 2006.

"This is, sadly, another step along the path of turning our national treasures into corporate booty," said Beth Burrows, Director of the Edmonds Institute (EI), one of the plaintiffs in the original lawsuit over this matter. "We support scientific research in the parks, but we are against commercializing the parks and their wildlife." "Legally the National Park System is not set up to be a commercial resource base, but the Administration seems dead set in favor of opening up the parks to commercial extraction," stated Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), another of the plaintiffs in the original lawsuit over bioprospecting in the Parks.

If this type of program gets started ... you no longer really have a national park... just a national warehouse to steal "mother natures" hidden treasures. Alot of them help balance the ecosystem in that given area. Mind you I am not against research but not on land that has been set aside to be left alone in the first place like the Great Smoky Mtns. I would like to know more about this "BioProspecting" program. Sounds like another "Road to Nowhere". When will it ever end ? !!

[hopefulhiker]

The link for the Bioprospecting article is:
http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publis...le_43259.shtml

[halftime]

The link for the Bioprospecting article is:
http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publis...le_43259.shtml

Link below is to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) published by NPS that the above article references.

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document...cumentID=16763

According to the DEIS, comercial research of specimans extracted from national parks has been occurring legally for 100 years. Although the actual comercial use or sale of these specimans is prohibited, the comercial use of knowledge or intelectual property gained from the research is not. NPS is hoping to change this with this initiative and reep benefit from the comercial activities of the resulting research.

NO MISTAKE THAT THIS DRIVEN BY BIG BUSINESS.
According to statements in chapter one of DEIS, advances in technology, Intelectual Property Right Laws, and other scientific development now make it possible to generate substantial economic benefit from research initiatives that were not possible (or even dreamed of) in years past. According to the draft, there have been 45 patents issued between 1978 and 2003 that are direct results of research activities within NPS. One product (known as PCR) is reported to have produced over $300 million from patent rights alone with additional $100 million annual revenue.

The Draft is lengthy but is divided into parts with an exeutive summary that gives a broad view. The NPS website also provides a link for comments if anyone is interested. They are accepting public comments until December 15, 2006.

[KirkMcquest]

Link below is is to an interesting article in September issue of "National Geographic".


http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/n...re2/index.html

The following paragraph cptured my attention:

Campaigning for the presidency in 2000, George W. Bush pledged that, if elected, he would wipe out the huge 4.9-billion-dollar backlog in deferred maintenance of the national parks' crumbling infrastructure. Given the fallout from 9/11, among other things, it was not to be. This year, in its budget request for fiscal 2007, the White House proposed cutting the Park Service's budget by 5 percent, or a hundred million dollars. Most of those missing dollars would come off the top of the service's construction and major maintenance funds, prompting the New York Times to suggest in a lead editorial that such deliberate cuts "could create the necessary cover for opening the parks to more commercial activity."

With any luck, the Dems will sweep the congress. With an axe to grind, they promise to stifle Bush's agenda.

[BlackCloud]

BioProspecting refers to the extraction of extremely rare microorganisms, fungi, etc for scientific research and the potential develoment of medications, among other potential applications. This program has been going on for a decade or more in Yellowstone where big bad businessmen from big bad corporations like Phiszer [sic] or Merk or someone like that have been extracting test tube quantities of bacteria from the Yellowstone pools.

This SOP for the NPS will in essence create standards for review and compensation. In Yellowstone for example, I seem to remember an article in National Parks magazine indicating that the contract called for the NPS to recieve 1% royalties for profits made as a result of extracted minerals, bacteria, or whatever else they take and exploit.

If a substance in a thermal pool helps to solve some catastrophic and/or terminal malady, so be it. I'm sure that more then one of you who don't want a thread of algae taken form a national park are more then willing to allow for stem cell research....

[RockyTrail]

It seems to me that the NPS is simply trying to make it legal for themselves to get royalties from commercial ventures arising out of already allowed bio-research. If this is true, then it can only be a net plus for the parks. I don't think you will see bulldozers in Cades Cove as a result of this. However I would be more worried about Congress re-allocating the funds if they ever do start flowing into the NPS.

Just think what they would be receiving today if the PCR discovery had been under this process.