-
mundasingh123
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2330
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
- Thanked: 56 times
- Followed by:26 members
Once surrounded and protected by vast wilderness, many of the national parks are
adversely affected by activities outside their boundaries. The National Park Organic Act
established the national park system and empowered the Secretary of the Interior to manage
(5) activities within the parks. Conditions outside park boundaries are not subject to
regulation by the Park Service unless they involve the direct use of park resources.
Several approaches to protecting the national parks from external degradation have
been proposed, such as one focusing on enacting
(10) federal legislation granting the National Park Service broader powers over lands adjacent
to the national parks. Legislation addressing external threats to the national parks twice
passed the House of Representatives but died without action in the Senate. Also brought to the
table as a possible remedy is giving the states bordering the parks
(15) a significant and meaningful role in developing federal park management policy.
Because the livelihood of many citizens is linked to the management of national parks, local politicians
often encourage state involvement in federal planning. But, state legislatures have not always addressed
(20)the fundamental policy issues of whether states should protect park wildlife.
Timber harvesting, ranching and energy exploration compete with wildlife within the
local ecosystem. Priorities among different land uses are not generally established by current
legislation.
Additionally, often no mechanism exists to coordinate planning by the state environmental regulatory
agencies. These factors limit the impact of legislation aimed at protecting park wildlife and the larger park
ecosystem.
Even if these deficiencies can be overcome, state participation must be consistent with existing federal legislation. States lack jurisdiction within national parks themselves, and therefore state solutions cannot reach activities inside the parks, thus limiting state action to the land adjacent to the national parks. Under the supremacy clause, federal laws and regulations supersede state action if state law conflicts with federal legislation, if Congress precludes local regulation, or if federal regulation is so pervasive that no room remains for state control. Assuming that federal regulations leave open the possibility of state control, state participation in policy making must be harmonized with existing federal legislation.
The residents of states bordering national parks are affected by park management policies. They in turn affect the success of those policies. This interrelationship must be considered in responding to the external threats problem. Local participation is necessary in deciding how to protect park wildlife. Local interests should not, however, dictate national policy, nor should they be used as a pretext to ignore the threats to park regions.
adversely affected by activities outside their boundaries. The National Park Organic Act
established the national park system and empowered the Secretary of the Interior to manage
(5) activities within the parks. Conditions outside park boundaries are not subject to
regulation by the Park Service unless they involve the direct use of park resources.
Several approaches to protecting the national parks from external degradation have
been proposed, such as one focusing on enacting
(10) federal legislation granting the National Park Service broader powers over lands adjacent
to the national parks. Legislation addressing external threats to the national parks twice
passed the House of Representatives but died without action in the Senate. Also brought to the
table as a possible remedy is giving the states bordering the parks
(15) a significant and meaningful role in developing federal park management policy.
Because the livelihood of many citizens is linked to the management of national parks, local politicians
often encourage state involvement in federal planning. But, state legislatures have not always addressed
(20)the fundamental policy issues of whether states should protect park wildlife.
Timber harvesting, ranching and energy exploration compete with wildlife within the
local ecosystem. Priorities among different land uses are not generally established by current
legislation.
Additionally, often no mechanism exists to coordinate planning by the state environmental regulatory
agencies. These factors limit the impact of legislation aimed at protecting park wildlife and the larger park
ecosystem.
Even if these deficiencies can be overcome, state participation must be consistent with existing federal legislation. States lack jurisdiction within national parks themselves, and therefore state solutions cannot reach activities inside the parks, thus limiting state action to the land adjacent to the national parks. Under the supremacy clause, federal laws and regulations supersede state action if state law conflicts with federal legislation, if Congress precludes local regulation, or if federal regulation is so pervasive that no room remains for state control. Assuming that federal regulations leave open the possibility of state control, state participation in policy making must be harmonized with existing federal legislation.
The residents of states bordering national parks are affected by park management policies. They in turn affect the success of those policies. This interrelationship must be considered in responding to the external threats problem. Local participation is necessary in deciding how to protect park wildlife. Local interests should not, however, dictate national policy, nor should they be used as a pretext to ignore the threats to park regions.
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
-
I am going to add this conversation to the RC resources poll.
