Bush’s centennial “vision” for National Park Service a big, fat flop

Take a look at Bush’s limp, flaccid and lifeless “call to service” for the Park Service to prepare for its centennial in 2016.

First, what’s missing from his call to arms?

No. 1, big-ticket projects. (If a light-rail system for Grand Canyon, which has been discussed for more than a decade, and not funded seriously by your administration, is the top item on the list, it and your “vision” are weak. And speaking of “not funding,”

No. 2, the money for big-ticket rehabilitation of desperate current facilities. Exactly as reported in the story:

Al Nash, spokesman for Yellowstone, said Friday he wasn't aware of any specific funding promises accompanying Bush's message. “Budgets are tight. Everybody would tell you that, whether it's Yellowstone, or any other national park or government entity,” Nash said.

Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a Washington interest group that lobbies for environmental causes, criticized the absence of additional funding. “These programs, including parks, are on a flight path to get even slimmer, and the idea that they're going to throw a fiesta, rather than provide funding, isn't all that meaningful,” Ruch said.

Bush said the projects would build on 6,000 park improvements made over the past five years. He requested, and Congress agreed to spend $5 billion-plus for those projects. But his pledge to eliminate a $5 billion annual maintenance backlog remains unfulfilled.

But, those aren’t the only items missing.

No. 3, Bush made no mention of special, centennial-focused partnerships with key nonprofits. And I’m not talking Sierra Club at or near the top of the list. My top three were the National Parks Conservation Association, the Student Conservation Association and the Nature Conservancy.

No. 4, if you’re really going to talk about a vision, you have to include a discussion of the NPS’ Organic Act and how you envision implementing and realizing it in the Park Service’s second century.

In short, this was more than ”just” George W. Bush being a cheapskate about national parks. It was him showing he really doesn’t grasp the concept of what national parks are about, especially in a day and age of wilderness conservation and wildlife habitats and corridors, along with indicating he’s not going to expend any intellectual capital on the issue.

Fortunately, we’ll have at least one more president before 2016, and it’s hard to imagine one more clueless on the issue than this one.