[Geysers] vista clearing

[Lee_Whittlesey at nps.gov]

Paul and others interested---

I did not mean to draw any kind of connection between those persons
passingly interested in "vista clearing" and those who want to tap geysers,
and I thought I made that clear.  I wrote about two separate issues.  I
numbered those issues separately in my subject heading, and I argued them
separately.  The "benefit phrase" issue is a separate issue from the
management philosophy issue.  I intended no connection between the two and
no such inference.  Not even slightly.

Now to the vista clearing business. You are right that it deserves some
discussion.

Your initial comment is a related idea, but it is not the "key." The key is
the keep-it-natural philosophy itself.  Everything else moves around it, or
at least it is supposed to.

Now that is not to say that the NPS does not occasionally manipulate
nature. It happens sometimes, as you well know. But it usually gets
discussed thoroughly, especially if the manipulation is significant. There
are times when "vista clearing" is not considered significant. That often
depends on HOW MUCH of it is being done. And, it is also true that in
developed (village) areas, the NPS tends to worry less about the pureness
of the philosophy than it does in undeveloped areas, so the likelihood of
some vista clearing being done in a developed area is certainly higher than
in an undeveloped area.

Where I might argue with you is in your comment that the "pullout views
were overgrown." In my experience, a lot of land managers shy away from the
term "overgrown" (kind of like "overgrazed") because it implies a human
value judgment.  A lot of folks in the "keep-it-natural" camp try to let
nature make those judgments rather than humans. Yellowstone and other
national parks are---according to the Leopold Report---not supposed to be
zoos, ranches, or harvest-gardens. They are not supposed to be commercial.
They are supposed to be "vignettes of primitive America" or places where
natural processes are left intact, or as largely intact as is possible.

But again, if we're only doing a tiny bit of vista clearing and if it is
only occurring in a developed area, we'll probably do some of it.

Thus you are correct in your comment about some trees in developed areas,
notably trees in the "strips" of parking lots, being manipulable. These are
certainly more subject to vista clearing and even to total cutting than are
trees in undeveloped areas. The question generally becomes: "how much of
that are we doing?" And you make a great point about trees growing on a
"slope buildup"---such as at Great Fountain Geyser---where the slopes near
roads are completely of human origin and are the result of landscape
architecture done by humans. I would be the first to argue that these are
NOT natural and can thus be manipulated, although I suspect that there
might be some persons who would argue against me.

That too is a point. The NPS is composed of human beings like any other
organization, and the people in it do not always agree with each other,
even at management levels far above me. But we do have guidelines and rules
that we use in order to have "yardsticks" of some kind. The Bridge Bay
Campground that you mentioned is a great example. I was not a participant
in those meetings back around 1984, but from what I've read, there was some
disagreement there. As I understand it, that difficult decision to remove
the trees occurred as the result of the "falling trees" lawsuit.  A lot of
people don't know this, but the NPS and all land owners and occupiers in
the U.S.---sometimes unfortunately in my opinion---have some big legal
liability where trees are concerned. Believe it or not, this liability
comes from city parks in England (English Common Law), from which we get
much of our own American common law. It means that land owners and
occupiers have a well established duty not only to remove hazardous trees
in public campgrounds but also to actually INSPECT for such trees and
hazards. That's why the trees got removed at Bridge Bay. That is sad for
those of us who are trying to protect and respect nature, but litigation is
an unfortunate reality. And we have to operate safely.

Lee Whittlesey




                                                                           
             Paul Strasser                                                 
             <upperbasin at comca                                             
             st.net>                                                    To 
             Sent by:                  'Geyser Observation Reports'        
             <geysers-bounces@         <geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu>      
             lists.wallawalla.                                          cc 
             edu>                                                          
                                                                   Subject 
                                       RE: [Geysers] 1) The "For the       
             02/27/2009 10:57          benefit" phrase and 2) ecological   
             PM                        processmanagement in YNP            
                                                                           
                                                                           
             Please respond to                                             
                  Geyser                                                   
                Observation                                                
                  Reports                                                  
             <geysers at lists.wa                                             
               llawalla.edu>                                               
                                                                           
                                                                           




Lee:

The key is that simply because a tree begins to grow in a developed area
doesn't mean it's thoroughly natural.  Vista Enhancement was common along
the drive from West Thumb to Lake in the past because the pullout views
were
overgrown.  A tree growing in the strips in the parking lot of the Inn are
not the same as tree growing in the back country, at least according to
everything I've read about developed areas vs. back country.

The slopes where the bushes and trees are growing at Great Fountain are
themselves not natural.  They are the sides of the slope buildup for the
parking lot.  The point is that the slope itself (as is the parking lot at
Old Faithful) is in itself "human intervention."

To even slightly infer that people who think the trees in parking lots (or
that mar prior views) should be cut back are the moral equivalent of those
who want to tap the geysers is demeaning and insulting.

Of far greater interest to us might be your comments on exactly how the
concept of vista enhancement is used in Yellowstone - who decides what
vistas require enhancements, and why.

By the way, the NPS was certainly not too worried about trees when they
clear cut most of the Bridge Bay campground in 1984.

Paul Strasser

-----Original Message-----
From: geysers-bounces at lists.wallawalla.edu
[mailto:geysers-bounces at lists.wallawalla.edu] On Behalf Of
Lee_Whittlesey at nps.gov
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 8:43 AM
To: Geyser Observation Reports
Cc: Geyser Observation Reports; geysers-bounces at lists.wallawalla.edu
Subject: [Geysers] 1) The "For the benefit" phrase and 2) ecological
processmanagement in YNP

It is important to understand that the term "for the benefit and enjoyment
of the people"---which appears in the park's Organic Act of 1872---can mean
any darn thing that any debater wants it to mean.

The phrase has been used to argue that snowmobiles should have free run all
over the park and even in the backcountry. And it has also been used to
argue that snowmobiles should be totally banned from the park. It has been
used to argue that we should kill animals in the park because "there are
too many of them" or because "they are overgrazing the land." It has been
used to argue that we should build swimming pools, golf courses, and ski
areas in the park. It has been used to argue that we should ban automobiles
from the park. It has been used to argue that we should tap the geysers and
hot springs for power generation. Since Congress wrote the phrase in 1872,
it has been used by debaters on every possible side of every issue to argue
their position, including usage by those who would abolish the park
entirely.

The point is----for anything that one person uses the phrase to argue for,
someone else can use it for the exact opposite purpose. Therefore, although
the phrase represents nice poetry, it is essentially meaningless, because
it can be used by proponents of any side of any issue  to argue for
ANYTHING. They can always say, "I am one of the people and this should be
done for my benefit."

With regard to "vista clearing" or "vista enhancement," it is important to
realize that the NPS subscribes to the management philosophy formerly known
as "natural regulation," which today is called "ecological process
management." That means human intervention in natural processes---including
vista enhancement---is kept to a minimum. "Enhancement" is, after all, in
the eye of the (human) beholder, and we as humans don't always agree with
each other as to what "should" be done in each of these cases. Therefore
the NPS tends to err on the side of nature, letting nature make the
decisions rather than humans.

Both of these subjects are philosophically deep ones, and there is a lot to
them. If anyone wants to discuss them further, I am always available.

Lee Whittlesey
Park Historian
(307) 344-2261