So, it's been a while, but I'm finally getting around to posting about some actual parks. Minnesota has a fantastic state park system and this past winter I visited three of them.
In November I went camping at Tettegouche state park on the North Shore of Lake Superior. Since it was hunting season, all parts of the park inland of Highway 61 were closed. The campsites, however, were open. We took a group site that was easily accessible from a parking lot. There were even carts available to load and transport gear in on well maintained and wide paths. In short, it was only a step more "rustic" than car camping. The site itself was gorgeous. Situated on a 20 foot cliff right on the lake there was a great view of the shoreline, which would have been better had it not been the weekend of the first winter storm of the year (being right on the lake we only got rain). It was nice being able to hear the waves breaking on the cliffs in the night, though as the storm grew in strength the wind became more of a problem, at one point almost taking down one of the tents. At times the waves were large enough to break and send spray up the cliff and well into the site. Still, quite a nice site. Proximity to the highway and other campsites might make for noise problems, especially in summer months when both are more heavily used, but we were the only people there that weekend. It would have been nice if the people in my group had been a bit more serious/less ridiculous/more prepared, but it was still an enjoyable time.
Due to the restrictions from hunting all of the hiking we did was actually in Gooseberry Falls which is located several miles south of Tettegouche. Again, large portions of it were off limits due to hunting, but a much larger area is on the lake side of the highway, providing more opportunity for activity. The day we were there it was raining sporadically, though not enough to keep us inside. The trails are fairly easy but still provide some nice views even in inclement weather. They also have a number of shelters and cabins that make it a good park for the elderly and parents with children to use. We tried to do the free geocaching exercise the visitor center had but it didn't seem to be working properly. Either the people I was with couldn't use the GPS properly or the coordinates were incorrect (or just entered improperly which would go back to improper use). Still, another activity that is good for families. Not even the weather and the waves could keep me from flying my kite though.
In February I went true winter camping with my boyfriend, Andrew, at Afton state park. The sites at Afton are about a mile in from the parking lot and reasonably well spaced from each other. In summer when all are occupied there is probably some crowding, but in winter it is easy to select one that is isolated from other groups (if any) that are present. We entered on snowshoes, not necessary on the walking trails but definitely required to get to and around the camping area. There are also many cross-country ski trails of varied difficulty levels that are heavily used. It is not the quietest park, and certainly not that dark either. It sits on the edge of the Twin Cities metro area and is right next to Afton Alps ski area. Lights from night skiing there as well as the sounds of lift operations cover most of the park, especially areas near the visitors center. At night (at least on winter weekends) there is a candlelight snowshoe/walking trail (most of the path is both, they do divide at one point) as well as free cider and hot chocolate at the center and a fire with marshmallows at the far point of the loop, donations are accepted but not required (and support for the parks is certainly a worthwhile cause).
Our site was nice, we picked one of the farthest ones that was shielded from the sights and sounds of the ski area. Unfortunately my stove pump was broken so we had to cook our dinner over a fire (starting it with dried grass and leaves) but there is firewood available. For a small fee you can have a wood permit and then cut your own at the central area of the campground. Andrew's tent was a little large for winter camping with only two people, but it got the job done. His new snow stakes also worked quite well though the snow might have been a bit too light for optimal performance. Afton is located about 40 minutes from the Twin Cities so it is easily accessible for day/evening trips as well as overnight excursions.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
DeChristopher Convicted
Tim DeChristopher, the environmental activist who bid on oil and gas leases to prevent development of sensitive tracts near Arches and Canyonlands National Parks, was convicted yesterday on both counts (false statements and impeding a federal auction). This is not surprising as he had admitted to the acts and he was barred from discussing his motives. The New York Times' reporter Kirk Johnson asked "Do Motives Matter?" in a blog post about the verdict. Legally, in this case, the answer is no. Without the ability to argue necessity any discussion of his motives, technically speaking, would be irrelevant to proving the charges; the government asked the jury "did he do it?" and reminded them that it didn't matter why. (Aside: motive is almost always irrelevant in criminal prosecutions (though it can be relevant in sentencing), a misconception that is perpetuated by pop culture portrayals of trial. Cops rely on motive in investigations, but in the courtroom it is rarely an element that must be proved).
Mr. Johnson is asking the wrong question. Rather, he should be asking "why was this case brought?" Prosecutorial discretion is the principle that the executive has the right to determine which cases are tried, which suspects tried, and what the priorities of enforcement will be. First, the Obama administration pulled the tracts in question from development, negating the auctions, so there was no harm to the government. Second, his motives were honorable. This is the case of a non-violent student engaging in civil disobedience. That he would be prosecuted and now faces up to 10 years in prison for this is unconscionable, especially from an administration that, despite its abysmal record in many areas, actually has a relatively good (though far from exemplary) record on environmental issues. However, what it comes down to is corporate power and money and, as DeChristopher said after his conviction, "I can't point to many examples where they've sided with future generations over corporate interests." It's just another in a long list of examples of Obama siding with the rich and powerful instead of supporting meaningful systemic reform.
At least he was convicted of dealing only with the Bureau of Livestock and Mining and not the historically (even more) corrupt Minerals Management Service (now Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement). That would have been intolerable. And perhaps he will raise the profile of the continued problems of widespread oil and gas leasing, climate change, and environmental degradation (especially near sensitive lands) and serve as a martyr. The first hero in a long fight.
Mr. Johnson is asking the wrong question. Rather, he should be asking "why was this case brought?" Prosecutorial discretion is the principle that the executive has the right to determine which cases are tried, which suspects tried, and what the priorities of enforcement will be. First, the Obama administration pulled the tracts in question from development, negating the auctions, so there was no harm to the government. Second, his motives were honorable. This is the case of a non-violent student engaging in civil disobedience. That he would be prosecuted and now faces up to 10 years in prison for this is unconscionable, especially from an administration that, despite its abysmal record in many areas, actually has a relatively good (though far from exemplary) record on environmental issues. However, what it comes down to is corporate power and money and, as DeChristopher said after his conviction, "I can't point to many examples where they've sided with future generations over corporate interests." It's just another in a long list of examples of Obama siding with the rich and powerful instead of supporting meaningful systemic reform.
At least he was convicted of dealing only with the Bureau of Livestock and Mining and not the historically (even more) corrupt Minerals Management Service (now Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement). That would have been intolerable. And perhaps he will raise the profile of the continued problems of widespread oil and gas leasing, climate change, and environmental degradation (especially near sensitive lands) and serve as a martyr. The first hero in a long fight.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Things This Week
First off, some sad news. The Fish and Wildlife Service has concluded that the eastern cougar subspecies is extinct and should be removed from the Endangered Species List. This isn't particularly surprising. Cougars were largely hunted down as pests, nuisances, and threats to livestock and people in the east long ago. That, combined with the massive destruction of habitat, ever-increasing surburbanization and sprawl, and the fragmentation of what little suitable habitat once existed into ever more isolated biological islands and large predators stand no chance of survival. To tie this in with parks a little bit, While often highly developed and connected to infrastructure, parks can provide protections for core biomes, and when all the public and private stakeholders are on board, can provide the anchor for regional management plans that enable species to have a foothold for recovery from which they can radiate into adjacent suitable areas.
It's also National Invasive Species Awareness Week. This is a worldwide problem that can have widespread economic as well as environmental effects, including in urban areas. Parks are not exempt. They are not sealed biodomes and species, including people and those that we carry with us whether intentionally or not, freely cross their boundaries. Nature doesn't care about arbitrary lines on a map. Of parks I've been to, several have notable invasive species problems. The Everglades have perhaps the most famous invader, the Burmese Python. Certainly it has led to battles with one of the apex predators native to the park, but it has also done damage to endangered species that are already under pressure from water diversion, pollution, and encroachment by a growing Miami metro area.
I didn't see any snakes when I was in the Everglades, but I did see the effects of invasive species in Hawaii. Kahili Ginger is a hardy, widespread, and nasty invader. It crowds out all the native understory flora and is almost impossible to kill except through a plant by plant cut and treat (with herbicides) approach. This meant that in some parts of the rain forest at Hawaii Volcanoes the understory was choked with ginger plants, with hardly any others visible except for the occasional tree. When they are flowering they can be quite pretty, but I'd prefer to see what is supposed to be there. There's beauty in that. There can be a long philosophical debate about how "natural" it is to go around "restoring" a landscape and whether such a landscape is any less artificial than one filled with invasives, attractive or not, deliberately placed or not, but that's not what I'm doing here (I have addressed it elsewhere, as have many others far more knowledgeable than I am). Native species are under enough attack, we don't need to go about making it worse by acting to save noxious pests that damage their range.
Even more damaging to Hawaiian species have been invaders whose effects are generally only visible in the voids they create. Specifically the combination of avian malaria and feral pigs has caused massive destruction of the native bird population, many species of which are on the brink of extinction. Invasives put even more pressure on species already threatened with massive habitat loss.
It's also necessary to watch out for unintended consequences. Rats (another invasive) were a problem in the Virgin Islands (though the main objection at the time was destruction of sugar cane) so plantation managers imported the mongoose from India to control them. This failed because rats are nocturnal and sleep in trees while the mongoose is a daylight hunter. The rats were unaffected and other sensitive species paid the price. So beware solutions that require further solutions, if only it were as easy as Principle Skinner's needle snakes and gorillas solution.
So happy NISAW everyone. And if you see something on that list, I hope it tastes good.
It's also National Invasive Species Awareness Week. This is a worldwide problem that can have widespread economic as well as environmental effects, including in urban areas. Parks are not exempt. They are not sealed biodomes and species, including people and those that we carry with us whether intentionally or not, freely cross their boundaries. Nature doesn't care about arbitrary lines on a map. Of parks I've been to, several have notable invasive species problems. The Everglades have perhaps the most famous invader, the Burmese Python. Certainly it has led to battles with one of the apex predators native to the park, but it has also done damage to endangered species that are already under pressure from water diversion, pollution, and encroachment by a growing Miami metro area.
I didn't see any snakes when I was in the Everglades, but I did see the effects of invasive species in Hawaii. Kahili Ginger is a hardy, widespread, and nasty invader. It crowds out all the native understory flora and is almost impossible to kill except through a plant by plant cut and treat (with herbicides) approach. This meant that in some parts of the rain forest at Hawaii Volcanoes the understory was choked with ginger plants, with hardly any others visible except for the occasional tree. When they are flowering they can be quite pretty, but I'd prefer to see what is supposed to be there. There's beauty in that. There can be a long philosophical debate about how "natural" it is to go around "restoring" a landscape and whether such a landscape is any less artificial than one filled with invasives, attractive or not, deliberately placed or not, but that's not what I'm doing here (I have addressed it elsewhere, as have many others far more knowledgeable than I am). Native species are under enough attack, we don't need to go about making it worse by acting to save noxious pests that damage their range.
Even more damaging to Hawaiian species have been invaders whose effects are generally only visible in the voids they create. Specifically the combination of avian malaria and feral pigs has caused massive destruction of the native bird population, many species of which are on the brink of extinction. Invasives put even more pressure on species already threatened with massive habitat loss.
It's also necessary to watch out for unintended consequences. Rats (another invasive) were a problem in the Virgin Islands (though the main objection at the time was destruction of sugar cane) so plantation managers imported the mongoose from India to control them. This failed because rats are nocturnal and sleep in trees while the mongoose is a daylight hunter. The rats were unaffected and other sensitive species paid the price. So beware solutions that require further solutions, if only it were as easy as Principle Skinner's needle snakes and gorillas solution.
So happy NISAW everyone. And if you see something on that list, I hope it tastes good.
DeChristopher Trial
Tim DeChristopher's trial is being conducted this week. DeChristopher is the environmental activist who prevented oil and gas drilling on lands near Arches and Canyonlands National Parks by bidding on and winning $1.8 million dollars worth of leases on BLM land in 2008. Unfortunately he has been barred by Judge Dee Benson from discussing his motives during his trial. While this is not particularly surprising, it makes it highly likely that he will be convicted. The statutes under which he is being charged require a "knowing" or "intentional" standard and the court rejected his "necessity defense." In other words, it said that even if all the evidence he planned to present in court were believed, it would not meet the requirements to legally justify his actions as preventing a greater harm. In its order barring discussion of necessity, the court held that he could not establish that he was forced to choose the lesser of two evils, that he couldn't show enough of a connection between the leases and the threat of climate change, and that he had other legal alternatives.
At trial, however, his defense team managed to get an allusion to his motivations into the courtroom, though that line of questioning was quickly shut down and the court cleared. Despite being only a brief mention, and even if Judge Benson instructs the jury to disregard, the practical effect is that this idea is now in the minds of the jurors (if it wasn't there already). Whether that is a good or bad thing is certainly an open question (this is Utah we are talking about), but orders to disregard are generally meaningless since one cannot unhear testimony or actively purge ideas. "The jury shall not think of a pink elephant." His defense team's efforts to claim he didn't intend to disrupt the bidding process or knowingly misrepresent himself as a bidder in good faith are less persuasive. "Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse" is something every first year law student is repeatedly told, and while it is often difficult to prove state of mind, the facts (signed document with explicit promises, clear course of action, no plan for payment, personal statements of intent) make the government's burden quite easy to meet.
His best shot at acquittal is through jury nullification: the jury deciding that even though the government has proved every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt it will not convict him because it feels he has done nothing wrong/is morally justified/otherwise excused. It is perfectly legal for juries to do this, though for obvious reasons the government is careful to keep it quiet and I am sure that in jury selection the prosecutors weeded out most of the environmentalists, outdoorsmen, and other likely sympathizers.
On an unrelated note: the Salt Lake Tribune's coverage has been, as one would expect, fairly biased against DeChristopher. Referring to him as an "admitted monkey-wrencher" and, pejoratively as a "'true believer' of the environmental movement." I suppose this is to be expected of a Utah paper.
At trial, however, his defense team managed to get an allusion to his motivations into the courtroom, though that line of questioning was quickly shut down and the court cleared. Despite being only a brief mention, and even if Judge Benson instructs the jury to disregard, the practical effect is that this idea is now in the minds of the jurors (if it wasn't there already). Whether that is a good or bad thing is certainly an open question (this is Utah we are talking about), but orders to disregard are generally meaningless since one cannot unhear testimony or actively purge ideas. "The jury shall not think of a pink elephant." His defense team's efforts to claim he didn't intend to disrupt the bidding process or knowingly misrepresent himself as a bidder in good faith are less persuasive. "Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse" is something every first year law student is repeatedly told, and while it is often difficult to prove state of mind, the facts (signed document with explicit promises, clear course of action, no plan for payment, personal statements of intent) make the government's burden quite easy to meet.
His best shot at acquittal is through jury nullification: the jury deciding that even though the government has proved every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt it will not convict him because it feels he has done nothing wrong/is morally justified/otherwise excused. It is perfectly legal for juries to do this, though for obvious reasons the government is careful to keep it quiet and I am sure that in jury selection the prosecutors weeded out most of the environmentalists, outdoorsmen, and other likely sympathizers.
On an unrelated note: the Salt Lake Tribune's coverage has been, as one would expect, fairly biased against DeChristopher. Referring to him as an "admitted monkey-wrencher" and, pejoratively as a "'true believer' of the environmental movement." I suppose this is to be expected of a Utah paper.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
About the Blog
I'm not entirely sure what the overall nature of this blog will be. I know that it will, as the title indicates, focus on the idea of parks, park management, and (probably) natural resources management more broadly. There will probably be a mix of news, commentary, and reviews of different parks and issues affecting them. While my interests generally run toward the national park system and the many issues it faces as it struggles to fulfill its dual mandate of promoting use and preservation, state and local parks often struggle with similar issues and will get attention as well.
One of my goals in life is to visit every unit of the National Park System. I know it's a bit cliche and hokey, but my interest is more than the low-brow kids-in-the-camper desire to see Disneyfied nature. I wrote my thesis on the idea of "Nature in the National Parks" and have always been interested in the interplay between policy, perception, and social construction. Every unit in the system has a different approach and focus, and some have extensive and interesting histories behind why they are presented the way they are. I value nature for its own sake, a large part of why I believe in and support parks (both for their aesthetics and their ecological value), but I realize that many people do not and need to experience them. What that experience consists of can go a long way toward shaping the nature of their support for parks and for the ideas of conservation and environmental protection more broadly. So part of my interest is more academic, evaluating and comparing how different parks present themselves and what that says about them and their management priorities.
So that's the basic goal. It's pretty ambitious, but life is about aspirations. I've been to a large number and might write some up (at least the ones I've been to more recently) before I get out to new visits. If any other big issues catch my eye I might also present my take on them though that's generally not my focus.
One of my goals in life is to visit every unit of the National Park System. I know it's a bit cliche and hokey, but my interest is more than the low-brow kids-in-the-camper desire to see Disneyfied nature. I wrote my thesis on the idea of "Nature in the National Parks" and have always been interested in the interplay between policy, perception, and social construction. Every unit in the system has a different approach and focus, and some have extensive and interesting histories behind why they are presented the way they are. I value nature for its own sake, a large part of why I believe in and support parks (both for their aesthetics and their ecological value), but I realize that many people do not and need to experience them. What that experience consists of can go a long way toward shaping the nature of their support for parks and for the ideas of conservation and environmental protection more broadly. So part of my interest is more academic, evaluating and comparing how different parks present themselves and what that says about them and their management priorities.
So that's the basic goal. It's pretty ambitious, but life is about aspirations. I've been to a large number and might write some up (at least the ones I've been to more recently) before I get out to new visits. If any other big issues catch my eye I might also present my take on them though that's generally not my focus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)