NEWS & PUBLICATIONS

Making Old Discoveries New Again

Now You See Them…
In June, my sister and I were driving through Yellowstone, just south of Mammoth Springs, when I got a brief glimpse of what I later figured out was a wolverine. It wasn't until I read your article in the Summer 2006 issue ["Out of Sight, Out of Mind"] that I realized what a rare sighting it was.

I read the article "Out of Sight, Out of Mind" with great interest. It really hit home for me. The verification of wolverines in Yellowstone is of personal interest to me and really no great surprise. As a new ranger in my first Park Service job after graduating from college, in the fall of 1949, I was living at the Game Ranch and Stevens Creek outside Gardner Montana, in the northwest section of Yellowstone National Park. My job included patrolling the Reese Creek and Electric Peak area on horseback, primarily to look for evidence of elk poaching.

After reaching the apex of my ride and starting to head back down the trail, my horse became startled and started acting up, and I soon saw why. Crossing our path about 40 yards ahead was a moderately large brownish-black animal that I recognized to be a wolverine. I had never seen one in person, but was familiar with them through pictures, and I knew enough to rule out animals such as black bears, grizzly bears, and badgers. I dutifully (and excitedly) reported this observation to my district ranger, assistant chief ranger, chief naturalist, and our wildlife manager. Each expressed marked skepticism in my report and indicated that my observation alone was not enough to disprove the widely held knowledge that there were no wolverines in the Yellowstone area. Unfortunately, I never had another chance to meet another of these wily creatures and get a photograph to prove my observation correct.

Room for Improvement
I recently picked up my Summer 2006 issue of National Parks magazine, and came across your article on National Heritage Areas, "Forging an Identity." I was very surprised to find that this article treated the National Heritage Area concept so favorably, only mentioning in passing at the very end of the article the problems facing the National Heritage Area concept. I’ve visited close to half of the existing National Heritage Areas, and while I agree that the Heritage Area is a promising concept, in practice my experience has ranged from underwhelming to disappointment. Overall, I’ve found that the Heritage Areas suffer from a number of problems, including a confused identity, a lack of focus, and inconsistent standards.

At the heart of the problem is the simple fact that there is really no existing concept for what a Heritage Area is or should be. Another growing concern of mine has been the lack of uniform standards for preservation and interpretation. I recently visited the Motor Cities National Heritage Area, and my general sense was that the hub sites of this National Heritage Area generally consisted of slapping the National Park Service arrowhead label on existing interpretation of automobile resources. Despite the wealth of resources existing at these museums, by the end of my visit, I found myself hungering for the high-quality interpretation of resources of national significance that I have found preserved at units of the National Park System at places such as Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site and Lowell National Historical Park.

In the end, I am happy that you raised the profile of the National Heritage Area concept through your article. Nevertheless, I think that the early years of the Heritage Area program have exposed some serious flaws in the confused identity, lack of focus, and inconsistent interpretation currently found in the program, and that your article underplayed these flaws.

Deja View
In the spring 2005 issue of National Parks, I read the article on the Channel Islands with great interest. My husband had been stationed at the air control and warning station on Santa Rosa Island from 1953 to 1954, and for more than 50 years I’ve listened to him talk about Santa Rosa. After reading the article, I contacted Channel Island Aviation and chartered a flight for April, to surprise him. Our pilot and National park guide treated us royally. I wanted to say thanks to National Parks for motivating me to take this once-in-a-lifetime trip.

Whose River Is It, Anyway?
Your article "Below the Rim", which appeared in the Summer issue, is nothing more than a paean to the whitewater rafting concessionaires who have a stranglehold on river permits to run the Colorado River through Grand Canyon. As a private rafter, I have been on the waiting list to obtain a permit for the Canyon for over 10 years (others have waited longer), and at the rate of permitting until this year, I would have waited probably another 6 years. In contrast, concessionaires can sell spots on their rafts up to the last minute and reservations are usually never more than a year in advance. The new private permitting system being instituted this year pretends to address these imbalances by granting more private permits but only during the cold, short-day months of late fall to early spring when much of the canyon is in deep shade. Furthermore, motor-driven commercial trips fly squarely in the face of the established Wilderness designation of most of the Grand Canyon. As a member of NPCA for many years, I object to your tacit support of motorized trips.

Editorial Reply: NPCA has long supported responsible management of the Colorado River to ensure the quality of the experience for visitors. Unfortunately, because of the river’s popularity, much of it comes down to simple numbers. The two outfitters mentioned in the article are considered among the best in upholding environmental standards and advocating for the river’s protection; both were recommended by a representative from the Grand Canyon Trust. NPCA continues to support greater opportunities for private raft trips, and recognizes that some progress has been made on that front in recent years. Lastly, our organization has long advocated for certain periods within the peak tourist season that would exclude motorized vessels and restore natural quiet to the canyon, but it’s a contentious issue that clearly won’t be resolved for quite some time.

Second That Emotion
It began with nodding my head while reading Barbara Edmondson’s letter to the editor in response to "The Thin Places" [Spring 2006]. She echoed my thoughts when I read the article, and tore the reflective pages from your spring issue to reread over the intervening weeks. Although I can’t pin it down, I sense a subtle change in your copy in recent months—a growing breadth that prompts a deeper understanding of how our national park endeavors affect our core being. You provide a balance of knowledge with a refreshing, encouraging mindfulness that causes us to both reach down into ourselves and reach out to share with others. Thank you for an increasingly richer reading experience.

Playing Devil’s Advocate
I read your coverage of the controversy surrounding Devils Tower with an ache in my heart ["Vertical Horizons," Summer 2006]. The Indian Nations have suffered far too much over the last 200-plus years since this nation was founded. It is time the Indians have what is theirs and theirs alone. All climbing should be suspended from Devils Tower. If climbers can’t find an alternative place for their sport, perhaps they should find another sport. To say it is infringing on their own freedoms is ludicrous. They have plenty of other places to climb, but the Indian Nations’ freedom of religion is being "stepped on." The national monument is for everyone’s enjoyment, but not at the expense of those who hold it sacred.

Cover Up?
I certainly enjoyed your article about the discovery of the African American slave cemetery in New York, ["History Unearthed," Summer 2006]. But as a teacher of U.S. history, one statement bothered me: The centrality of slavery in New York was not just overlooked but covered up—you couldn’t ask for a more glaring example. In U.S. history classes I’ve never seen any attempt to cover up the truth that slavery existed in all of the colonies by either teacher or textbook. Due to climate and soil, those areas could not develop the plantation system that was the basis of Southern economy, but rather grew into the industrial region of the country. Over time, the northern colonies outlawed slavery one by one. By the way, I also read the article about the dunesong ["Rhythms of the Desert"] and went to the website to hear it for myself. It was awesome. Thanks.