1. My precise quote was not to the Organic Act, but to the US Code. Since you don’t know the difference, even if the words might be exactly the same, shows how clueless you are. Talk to me after you get a college education.

2. Edward Abbey couldn’t manage a taco stand, so why is his view worth more than his taco? In Edward Abbey’s world, every yahoo can go do whatever they want regardless of the law, so there would not be an animal larger than a pack rat in any National Park. Polluters could dump wherever they want. That is Edward Abbey, your argument to authority. Without the rule of the law, national parks throughout the world are worthless.

3. You are just dishonest in your discussion. I talked about the 58 National Parks, then you tried to be a smart-ass and say you knew about 400 units, which then must include all the NRAs and NMs and everything else. So then I cite an NRA back to you and pretend that you were only talking about “National Parks”. Stupid is as stupid does.

4. Tell me your plans to ban all private cars from all National Parks. Tell me your plans from 10 National Parks. Tell me your plans for 1 National Park year round. Stupid is as stupid posts.

Yes, you found the Organic Act. No one is talking about “Al Gore’s socialist plan to lock up the national parks” (something a senior citizen once said to me at one national park). It’s not about locking them up; it’s about restoration. People can enjoy parks without the aid of internal combustion engines. Did you read this quote from Abbey? “We have agreed not to drive our automobiles into cathedrals, concert halls, art museums, legislative assemblies, private bedrooms and the other sanctums of our culture”. Parks can be enjoyed on foot, on horseback, on bicycle, on shuttle for those too invalid to walk. Roads and cars desecrate our most sacred sites and the sacred sites of American Indians.

Try understanding that “enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations” means that anything that impairs parks, LIKE ROADS AND CARS, are not permitted under the Organic Act. Any enjoyment must leave parks unmarred. PERIOD.

Also, you keep bringing up areas that aren’t national park in name, like GOGA, of which both Alcatraz and the Presidio are a part; this is an NRA. I’m talking about national parks that were set aside for their natural qualities, not their cultural resources or recreational qualities. Please stop trying to distract from that. There is an overwhelming body of evidence that shows that cars/roads have impaired places like Sequoia, Crater Lake, Mount Rainier, Glacier, Bryce, Arches, Grand Canyon, Olympic, Yosemite, Zion, etc, etc, etc. Roads and cars in these parks are an impairment, which goes against the mandate of the founding charter. Period.

TITLE 16–CONSERVATION
CHAPTER 1–NATIONAL PARKS, MILITARY PARKS, MONUMENTS, AND SEASHORES
SUBCHAPTER I–NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

There is created in the Department of the Interior a service to be called the National Park Service, which shall be under the charge of a director. The Secretary of the Interior shall appoint the director, and there shall also be in said service such subordinate officers, clerks, and employees as may be appropriated for by Congress. The service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified, except such as are under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army, as provided by law, by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is 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.

The only reason that parks are managed to leave them “unimpaired” is so that future generations can also enjoy them, not to lock them up from people. Try reading a whole sentence once in a while.

Hey, nobody is saying the parks should be gutted. And if you can think of a way to have a park be used and enjoyed without cars, then great! The NPS keeps cars out of Alcatraz, and that works, but it won’t work to keep cars out of the Presidio.

DS

Maybe that’s because you’re projecting. Not sure sure which words convey an angry tone. Condescending? Perhaps. You rarely offer evidence for your positions. You seem to be arguing from ignorance on the matter of the 1916 legislation. Your pathetic command for me to do my own research non-withstanding, that particular clause is the ultimate criterion of preservation. Go ahead. Redefine “unimpaired”; I dare you.

The rest of your post is an unsupported regurgitation of apologist talking points. Come back with some evidence, and perhaps we can talk again.

National Parks are not Wilderness Areas. They are to be used and enjoyed. The NPS is to promote their use and enjoyment. Sure a few people would love to have roadblocks put around them and made their own private domains, but that would never have received much support in Congress and their would be almost no National Parks. When did someone every say “I support making this a National Park to keep people away from it?”

Sure a handful of national parks could run shuttles inside the park and try to charge extremely large fees to break even after their visitor numbers drop off. A few national parks run shuttles in part of the park and for only part of the year. That is far far far far far away from making “banning all automobiles” in national parks feasible.

Focusing on dispersed campers is a red herring; maybe you can shine a light on these corporatist ski resorts and concession companies; you know, the ones who are really taking advantage of the system and screwing the taxpayer.

2. Instead of advocating federal land management, why don’t you advocate non-profit land trusts?

3. Why do you recommend 50% go back to the Treasury? You state this is “arbitrary.” Won’t that money end up in other programs, like DoD or SNAP or where ever politicians’ whims want it? Why not have 100% of fees stay with the agency? Why not offset their base budgets by this amount to discourage overuse/over development?

4. Do you really think recreation users really receive “free access to public lands”? What about the federal taxes they pay?

5. Isn’t it time to go after private ski resorts and lodges and USFS concessions that profit from government subsidy? Why should these private business profit on the taxpayers’ backs? Shouldn’t their revenue contribute to agency operation costs? Aren’t these the people who are really ripping off government because the fees they pay do not reflect fair-market value?