I know I am a broken record, but on that one day I'd let trail cyclists ride wherever they want, allowing them to exercise their own judgment and good sense to avoid trails made fragile by, e.g., mud. The next day I'd assess any trail-conflict reports, accident statistics, and trail-damage evaluations. After finding no problems whatsoever, I'd move along with the NPS plan to relax the no-bicycles rules!

I appreciate the historical reasoning behind the no fees for the park road, but I do believe that things change and Congress has managed to "alter" a few other agreements that have been made along the way. I like the idea that it is a "parking fee" as opposed to a toll for the road :-).

I would fire the people that authorized the bridges at Yosemite. I once talked to a consultant who said he was flown from Montana to Yosemite (on the parks dime) to ask his views on the (then) proposed bridges over the Merced River. He said the park staff didn't listen to a thing he said. Since then there has been a few floods, and I am of the professional opinion that those bridges were a major contributing factor.

If I was the Director for more than a day, I would do the following:

1-Through attrition and retirement, I would carefully reduce the staff at the regional and national levels of the National Park Service, and even the permanent staff in some of our parks. To prevent a major financial crisis and to continue supporting military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, our government has spent an incredible amount of money and has increased the national deficit substantially. But .....eventually taxes will have to be raised and budgets will have to be reduced, and the Park Service probably will not be exempt from those cost cutting efforts. And so why not get ready and start reducing any and all unnecessary staff wherever and whenever possible so we don't have to cut or curtail any visitor services, any tours, or anything that would reduce the positive experiences visitors can have at our parks.

2-I would mandate training in the basic spirit and letter of the Freedom of Information Act and in the directives and guidelines concerning FOIA that have been prepared by the DOI and Department of Justice. Far too many of our governmental agencies and departments continue to be fairly secretive about their budgets and their decision-making process, and the Park Service has parks and regional offices that continue to behave as if FOIA was never passed, as if President Obama and Secretary Salazar had not direct everyone within the Park Service to go beyond the legal requirements of FOIA and to do whatever possible to usher in a new era of openness and transparency. If you have any doubts about how closed and uncooperative parks can be, read about my ongoing battle trying to get some basic information from Mesa Verde National Park at this site.

Currently every new employee has to take online courses concerning computer and internet use and online courses on the Whistleblower Protection Act; and I believe every employee also should be required to take an online course on FOIA and its implications and regulations. Simply stated, when everyone knows that everyone else is entitled to know how public funds are being spent, when people know that every meeting they have and every decision they make can be perused by others, they eventually spend money more carefully and make better decisions.

3-Every park should regularly engage in evaluations at every level. And those evaluations should be compiled, and they should be used in regular, annual and/or bi-annual reviews. With computer technology being what it is, simple on-line evaluations could be conducted and compiled easily and effortlessly at every level of the Park Service; and skilled managers could then correct problems and address needs, and deal with personnel issues. Quite frankly, there are horror stories and incredible tales of mean-spirited park supervisors and superintendents; and there are stories of just outright incompetency; and there are instances when everyone has known about instances of waste, fraud and abuse within some parks. But in spite of these, I've heard of regions where budgets are virtually free from audits, and where superintendents are virtually never reviewed and never evaluated, and where they can operate as virtual monocrats.

4-Although everyone feels veterans should be given extra help and benefits. But in the process of hiring seasonal and permanent Park Employees, they shouldn't be able to get a score greater than 100. Simply stated, there's something wrong with a system that says a veteran who has virtually no experience working within a national park, and has no proven experience working with people in a park setting, should be considered a better candidate than some young person who has worked several seasons for the National Park Service, who has received nothing but outstanding evaluations, and who is committed to working for the Park Service. In part, the problem is in the scoring methodology that gives so little weight to the young person's experience as a ranger, or that gives such similar scores to some veterans who have never worked in a park like environment but who end up with similar or higher scores.

Of course, this is related to a larger problem that I addressed in another comment several months ago.....namely, how to train and retain some of our better young rangers. Currently, I think we are losing far too many of our better more talented young people. They come with hopes and dreams, and they leave discouraged and frustrated.

I really appreciate the historical reasoning behind the no fees for the park road, but I do believe that things change and Congress has managed to "alter" a few other agreements that have been made along the way. I like the idea that it is a "parking fee" as opposed to a toll for the road .