National Parks Traveler

$1.9 million may be a lot, but the park received multiple base funding increases specifically for the sea turtle program and the program director hustled to get soft (short term) funds to supplement. The program should continue to get the base funding and the director should be supported in efforts to continue to get soft funding via competitive proposals. It should be up to her.

When the messenger has an obviously  biased agenda, and has a vested interest in promoting that agenda, yes it's legitimate and NECESSARY to an informed discussion to point that out.  

Ah, so many willing to shoot the messenger vs contemplate the message. Sad state of the country these days. There are valid arguments on both sides of the PRNS leases, cattle, elk, etc. but certainly how PEER is funded, or the work they do, are not pertinent to the true matter at hand. Neither Ali's fear mongering about how those ranchers are going to save us all when an earthquake strikes.

You report that PEER argues that "These purely commercial operations serve no park purpose," and that "barbed wire fences restrict park visitors from entering the leased dairy and ranch lands."  Are your readers and PEER aware that the Point Reyes National Seashore is on the Pacific Tectonic Plate?  That it is separated from the American Tectonic Plate by the San Andreas Fault

 "Taxpayers should not be obligated to subsidize these private businesses."   YEAH!  Taxpayers should be obligated to subsidized public employees like those members of PEER!   The hypocrisy of public employes whining about taxpayer funding of other entities lacks an amazing amount of self-awareness. 

This is the exact mochismo mindset that alllows for serious accidents and what evidence do you have to show that your statments are true? Nooone hurt, animal injury-in the ammount of tie the site has been open I find it very unlikley.... 

 National parks are supposed to be preserved unimpared for future generations.   No, that's never been the mission of the NPS.  It might be YOUR desired mission, but it is not OUR collective mission or vision for our nat'l pakrs.

OK, we're moving on from this conversation over politics. I think the bases have been covered.

"Sorry, Poncho, I was referring to YOUR neighborhood, wherever that is. How about a moratorium on road construction EVERYWHERE?  Would you be willing to live with that?" This is whataboutism and a reductio ad absurdum. Please stick to the topic, Mr. Dalton, and end your attempts to distract away from the subject: roads in national parks.

Sorry, Poncho, I was referring to YOUR neighborhood, wherever that is.  How about a moratorium on road construction EVERYWHERE?  Would you be willing to live with that? You also posted :  (And even if cars are electric, building them and mining rare earth metals also emits CO2, and a sizable portion of the electricity they run on is generated by coal-fired powerplants.)

Well, from the devil's advocate's position, the USFWS has had quite a few of its wolf decisions overruled by courts. It'd be interesting to see exactly what the number is.

See if this helps:https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9rz2v701