[Geysers] Old Faithful scoping document - context, conviction, and convincing

[Davis, Brian L.]

I'm not sure I agree with everything Scott mentions (which is fine; that's why there *is* input like this, both here on the list and within the NPS system). But I wanted to point out a few issues I think might be good to keep in mind when writing about these things in the context of the NPS. Scott mentions:

> "Public health and safety" -- This scares me. More railings in the geyser
> basins; boardwalk removal?

It scares me as well - I'm actually all for a Darwinian solution (seriously!), if I thought the Park system and the features themselves could survive it. I doubt they could. Short of changing the entire public perception of the NPS and wilderness in general, this is an issue... not one I like, and one I have fairly radical views on, but one that does need to be addressed. If it's not, how many deaths will it take until the boardwalks are removed all together, or railings and IR sensors are in place throughout the basins?

> Don't kowtow to the out-of-shape American public, NPS

They do now - and almost always have. After all, there's no need for roads in the Parks, not even one the size of Yellowstone - if you want to see a unique environmental setting, you can hike to it (so it takes a few days, and that limits access... so that doesn't work for the old, or the young, or the sick, etc. Don't kowtow to the limited, either in terms of physical ability or inclination or experience or economics). There's a tension here, between those that want instant gratification at little to no cost (financial or otherwise), and those that want a protected or wilderness experience... and that's been a problem in the NP system since it's very inception, with the stated mandate: "…to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife 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." The first and third clauses are easy to implement - keep people out, period. The second clause is also easy - do anything needed to make it easy for all people to access all elements of the parks. It's resolving the conflict between them that's given the NPS heartache from the beginning.

Some background context on myself - I've watched this and sometimes dealt with it in the Mammoth Cave region for twenty years now. It's not new, it's not easy, and there's rarely a single good answer. That environment, ironically, is even more delicate than YNP. "Graffiti" several thousand years old is easy to find, and even footprints remain for at least a few thousand years, and the impact from the surface is extensive, which has required controlling or influencing communities well *outside* the Park boundaries.

> "Do you have other ideas..." The trees in the parking lot below the Old Faithful Inn,
> which almost completely impede the view from the Inn (even the from balcony) into
> the geyser basin do not belong there. These trees are not natural, right? 

This is actually the phrase that made me want to comment publicly on this. You position seems to be the trees don't "belong" there, and they're not "natural"... and they're in front of the Inn? Let's be clear here (as anyone in the Park worth their salt would be). The Inn is not natural (it is historic). The sightlines that were present a century ago are not natural (not even close). If your position is that these trees detract from the experience of the basin, well... for some folks, so does the Inn (beautiful, historic, and amazing structure... but in all seriousness, it's an imposition on the landscape, not a natural feature. It actually seriously detracts from the view in my opinion).

My point is not that the trees *shouldn't* come down... but that arguing the point from this position (that they are "not natural", and should be removed "to enhance the visitor experience") could be easily agreed with, and your very arguments could end up supporting changes you might not think so highly of ("remove the boardwalks... after all, they're not natural, and all those people walking around detract from the view from the Inn..." or "pave trails and shuttle bus everyone to stops located every 50 yards within the UGB... after all, we were asked to enhance the experience, and some people claim they need this... along with the soft drink stand").

It's not just the message, but the supporting evidence & its presentation that should be thought about carefully.

My personal view? I'm together with probably 80%+ of the things others have said here. And I have friends that have worked very hard to rip out trails from Mammoth Cave each and every year (it's a volunteer effort, and a backbreaking and somewhat dangerous one at that), so I'm at least a little familiar with the give and take, and how the NPS *can*, at times, work well with the unique interest groups that grow up around them. I've also seen what shuttle systems have done in some of the National Parks I've dearly loved (Zion, & Chaco Canyon come to mind), and while I was strongly against them at the time... I was wrong I think. Both the protection of the resources (yep, I'll use that word :) ), as well as the enjoyment of them, has been significantly improved (especially at Chaco, another very fragile environment). The only better solution I can think of in that regard is to limit access to some fixed number of visitors a year (hey, preferably, just me :) )... and again, looking at the NPS mandate, this is unlikely to happen*, and perhaps shouldn't even if it could fly politically. I have students now who don't see any reason to reduce outdoor lighting, because there's nothing to see in the sky at night. Most of them haven't even seen the Milky Way, let alone aurora, etc. If the public, the lazy, ignorant, whining, out-of-shape public, doesn't get the chance to experience these wonders... then they'll have no reason to want to keep protecting them.

My two cents... mostly on method (how to present your position), not content (to each his own).

*Actually, as an afterthought, it *has* happened, effectively, in a few cases - there are areas I know of in national parks that have been effectively taken off the maps, and the rangers don't talk about, to keep them protected... even though, in some cases, if you find them, they are even signed. Sometimes, the only reliable solution has ultimately been keeping people out it seems.

-- 
Brian Davis