Comments on: Flying Squirrel Would Alter Parkway Views If Management Prescription Fails

By: Houck Medford

Houck Medford — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:56:56 +0000

Additional comments can be found here …
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2008/04/flying-squirrels-scenic-vistas-and-blue-ridge-parkway#comment-6003
…from Kurt Repanshek, editor

By: Jim Woodfin

Jim Woodfin — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:13:36 +0000

The Foundation Executive Director seems to favor Alternative 2 based primarily on budgetary grounds, a well-justified position given the fact that BLRI is still operating at 1980 budget levels. What businessperson could consider expanding a business which has received a 0.5% budget increase and only limited economic benefits from technology-based efficiencies since 1980? I’d be interested to hear his assessment of the EA if the NFS were to accompany its recommendation with sufficient and ongoing additional funding to accomplish Alternative 3. I’d also like to see a list of other important but unfunded BLRI projects weighted against the six NEPA Goals as in Table 1 of the EA.
In addition to deteriorating U.S. fiscal realities, climate change will present challenges that we can’t yet imagine. The EA notes that CNFS and spruce-fir forests are probably relicts from times of cooler climate. I assume that both will likely be driven to extinction or more northerly habitats in the not-so-distant future. Perhaps this reality should somehow be reflected in the NEPA Goals assessment, and in weighing CNFS preservation against other BLRI funding priorities.
The past 30 years have seen disgraceful declines in funding for public spaces, with corporate sponsorship, privatization, overworked staff and volunteers partially filling the gaps. Worse yet, we are now entering a time of budgetary challenges unequaled since the days when the BLRI was conceived. What does the future hold for public treasures like the BLRI?
Some possibilities:
1) We could have a well-funded “IBM Big Blue Ridge Parkway,” with advertisements at each overlook, laser-projected inside each tunnel, and broadcasted on satellite radio and TV into our SUV seatback displays.
2) We could encourage, enlist, and empower large numbers of volunteers, instructed and supervised by NPS professionals.
3) We could require public service duties of all citizens, especially providing every youth with a safe, positive-influence, life-changing and career-launching experience.
It’s probably no mystery which direction I favor and to which I will gladly contribute time and resources.
Our population seems to be well-supplied with bored people, actively seeking “entertainment.” We have massive industries providing all the entertainment we can afford. Our country now also provides incarceration for more than 2.3 million adults whose entertainment needs seem to lead them into dead ends. This “service” costs the U.S. more than $55 Billion each year*, a large part of which is to detain nonviolent criminals. Not that there’s any relationship, but the National Forest Service budget is about $5 Billion per year.**
I have a feeling that most youth would benefit from a year’s work in the forest, away from TVs, iPods, boomboxes and street violence. And it wouldn’t hurt us older folks to also help in whatever ways we each are able. It would be a massive project to implement, but might save us a lot of money and grief in the long run.
* http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/28/ST2008022803016.html
** http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/

By: Edgar Woodfin

Edgar Woodfin — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:35:14 +0000

I would recommend the Historic Management Method. The ratio of these vista areas to the total habitat of the CNFS has to be very insignificant. We’re talking about squirrels, for heaven’s sake. Nothing is more determined when wanting to go where they want to. This is a non-issue. Let’s not waste any more time and money on this debate. Thank you.

By: Charles Shackelford

Charles Shackelford — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:41:49 +0000

I do not actually know for a fact, as some will suppose, that these squirrels have “thousands of acres” available. I am not an expert and for all I know maybe these mentioned vistas are a major component of their habitat. I am all for views available and quite enjoy leisurely tours with these fascinating landscapes. I agree in principle with your recommendations.
It seems the real issue is improperly financed government which could jeopardize tourism dollars in its ineffectiveness. Where are Franklin and Teddy Roosevelt when you need them? Instead we have the war mongering, inept and corrupt Little King George who is all about developing for private interests all of our public lands and domains at the expense of all species of wildlife. This would be a non issue in many European nations and if one thinks clearly on this issue, it is an outrage to have such important agencies as yours under funded.
I would opt for allowing the areas to grow naturally and provide a safe haven for these fascinating friends instead of an underfunded and hopeless strategy being implemented, as your suggested possible outcome. If it is possible to maintain these vistas efficiently, and raise the money and public awareness necessary, without a doubt I would concur with the third option.

By: Bill W. Smith

Bill W. Smith — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:11:00 +0000

I fully agree and support the author’s assessment of continuing to insure the vistas by cutting the trees or foilage at and around turnouts and observation places past years. There will still be thousands of acres along the Pkwy for the squirels’ habitation.