Start A Petition

TAKE ACTION NOW! National Park Service, Sierra Club, Audobon Society: UN-CONSTITUTIONAL : Stop Closings of Federal Parks to US

Environment  (tags: NPS, NATIONAL PARKS, public access, activism, environment, ecosystems, conservation, destruction, oceans, nature, humans, politics, habitat )

- 2156 days ago -
Federal Parks are being closed little by little. "Ecological misinformation" for the closing of a Federal Park should be a crime.The NPS, Sierra Club, and the Audobon Society are systematically shutting down access to your public Federal Parks all over th

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Past Member (0)
Wednesday June 27, 2012, 4:17 am

Carol H (229)
Wednesday June 27, 2012, 4:25 am
signed and noted

Daniel Partlow (179)
Wednesday June 27, 2012, 6:36 am

Vallee R (280)
Wednesday June 27, 2012, 8:04 am
Noted and signed - thanks.

Alice C (1797)
Wednesday June 27, 2012, 8:36 am
Signed ~ Thank you Cal.

Alice C (1797)
Wednesday June 27, 2012, 8:42 am
Shared on FB

Past Member (0)
Wednesday June 27, 2012, 9:11 am
Good to sign. Thanks.

Michela M (3964)
Wednesday June 27, 2012, 11:10 am

Kit B (276)
Wednesday June 27, 2012, 12:56 pm

We received this heritage from those with an eye to the future, let us continue to protect our parks. Signed and posted to FB

. (0)
Wednesday June 27, 2012, 3:50 pm

Janet R (38)
Wednesday June 27, 2012, 7:13 pm
Why are you people signing this? Did you read it? "The NPS, Sierra Club, and the Audobon Society are systematically shutting down access to your public Federal Parks " - since when would the Sierra Club and Audobon be closing parks? The petitioner is complaining about Sierra Club and NAS using your donations to fatten their bank accounts? What a crock of crap. I have no plans to sign it as I have seen no evidence of national parks closing. Parks are short-staffed but you can thank Congress for that. It's not up the usual standards of

Elle B (84)
Wednesday June 27, 2012, 10:57 pm
Janet is right this is a petition from those who want to keep ORV's in the natural areas. . .please read what you sign carefully and know the groups who are petitioning. Those of you who are signing this are working against those of use who are working to keep motorized RV's OUT of natural areas. Those vehicles change the environment forever and they DO DISTURB the wildlife. If you believe in having recreational vehicles running around the sparce natural habitats we have left then you signed the right petition. I don't know why sponsored this, I will be contacting them.

Elle B (84)
Wednesday June 27, 2012, 11:00 pm
This is a sportmsman's bill--here is what you've onto--I would call/write to revoke your signatures--it
s bogus--you have to be very very vigilant nowdays--so many are willing to play devious games to get what they want.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today the House passed Congressman Walter B. Jones’ bill – The Preserving Access to Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area Act. The bill was rolled into a package of 13 other bills and voted on as H.R. 2578 - the Conservation and Economic Growth Act. Congressman Jones’ bill would restore taxpayers’ right to reasonable pedestrian and motorized access to Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. H.R. 2578 passed the House by a vote of 232-188, and now goes to the Senate for further consideration.

“This legislation is about jobs, it’s about the taxpayers’ right to access the recreational areas they own, and it’s about restoring balance and common sense to National Park Service management,” said Jones.

Jones’ bill would overturn a final rule implemented by the Park Service earlier this year that excessively restricts taxpayers’ access to Cape Hatteras Seashore, and is unnecessary to protect the wildlife. The language would reinstitute the Park Service’s 2007 Interim Management Strategy to govern visitor access and species protection at Cape Hatteras. It would reopen 26 miles of beach that are now permanently closed to motorized beach access, and give seashore managers flexibility to implement more balanced measures that maximize both recreational access and species protection. By doing so, the bill would reverse the significant job loss and economic decline that Hatteras Island has experienced since the Park Service cut off access to the most popular areas of the seashore.

There is broad, bipartisan public support for this effort. Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Kay Hagan (D-NC) have introduced the same bill in the Senate. The bill is also supported by national sportsmen’s groups including the American Sportfishing Association and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation.

Elle B (84)
Wednesday June 27, 2012, 11:22 pm
This is many bills rolled into impacts more than one is Sierra Club's Position:

Over three million visitors a year enjoy the iconic vistas of Yosemite National Park, yet many never learn the name of the river that shares the views of breath-taking ridges, steep, forested slopes, or flows down its waterfalls. The Merced River’s headwaters lie in the Park’s southeast corner, from which it flows 145 miles through scenic Yosemite Valley and the foothills of the Sierra Nevada.

The Merced River is the source of almost incalculable benefits for local communities, providing water, power, and millions of dollars in tourism and outdoor recreation. Whitewater enthusiasts come from around the world to raft the waters of the Lower Merced, where a Wild and Scenic River designation protects dozens of miles of the free-flowing river from harmful development and activities. Whitewater rafting sustains twelve businesses in Mariposa County alone, bringing in an estimated $2.5 million a year to the local economy.

Now, many fear what will happen to these businesses if proposed legislation from Representative Jeff Denham passes through Congress. H.R. 869 and H.R. 2578 would remove a short segment the Merced River from its Wild and Scenic protections to raise the reservoir ten feet and inundate perhaps an additional half mile to the twenty-four miles currently inundated by the dams downstream.. This change would inundate hiking trails, submerge at least one campsite, and make stagnant waters out of current rafting areas. Rep. Denham says the amendment will allow for increased water storage and power generation, which has locals asking: for whose benefit? Denham’s short bill does not clarify, but some suspect the intended beneficiary is big agriculture downstream, although raising this dam—that has never filled and spilled in its history—would generate little meaningful water.
Merced raftersRafters enjoy the waters of Mariposa County (Image: RandomTruth via Flickr)

In his testimony for the Bureau of Land Management, Director Robert Abbey opposed the bill on the grounds of habitat inundation for numerous threatened species, including the yellow-legged frog and the limestone salamander. An increase in flood levels would also destroy the seed banks of sensitive plant species. Lastly, it would mark the first de-designation of a Wild and Scenic River to drown under a reservoir in congressional history, establishing a dangerous precedent for America’s 12,600 miles of federally protected waters. Making lake-like conditions out of the Yosemite Valley’s famous river would compromise its integrity for future generations and threaten current jobs.

“The Sierra Club is adamantly opposed to the misguided bills by Congressman Denham to delete a portion of the Merced River from its Wild and Scenic Status,” stated Alan Carlton, chair of the California Nevada Regional Conservation Committee of the Sierra Club. “Our wild rivers are a precious national resource, and there is no reason to remove even one inch from protected status—and certainly not to provide more water for large corporate interests.”

In a press release, Rep. Denham recognized that “we are dependent on water for jobs and to sustain our local economy.” Let’s not forget that many of these jobs depend on the scenic values of the river as it stands now.

Take action by urging your Congressmembers to oppose these bills.

Fran F (118)
Thursday June 28, 2012, 12:00 am
Something looked off about this petition from the start: the implied collusion of the National Park Service, Greenpeace and Audobon to close down the national parks to the public. This thing is a piece of demagoguery. How many of you really want hunting and extended RV use in our national parks, wildlife refuges and national monuments? I certainly do not! Thank you, Nyack, Janet and Elle for bringing clarity to the discussion.

Elle B (84)
Thursday June 28, 2012, 12:19 am
Misleading HR 2578 Conservation and Economic Growth Act
a bill nobody wants, looking for a problem nobody has
Border Wall — By Jill Holslin on June 15, 2012 2:51 pm
Latest News
View News Feeds
2012 Press Releases
Quigley Fights for Increased Protections Against Oil and Gas Drilling

“We have to learn from past environmental disasters and prioritize conservation over the profits of big oil companies,” said Rep. ...

H.R. 2578, the Conservation and Economic Growth Act, purports to create jobs by violating or eliminating over 35 laws that currently govern our land, air, water, and importantly, our nation’s borders.

The idea follows that in giving the Department of Homeland Security free reign to traverse the roughshod lands around our borders, we’ll be safer.

But, the Department of Homeland Security didn’t ask for this access, nor do they believe it’s warranted.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told a Senate subcommittee in March that unrestricted authority over public lands was unnecessary for the Border Patrol to do its job and was "bad policy."

And, we’re not just talking the lands on the collar of America’s borders.

No, this bill would disrupt your vacation in Cape Hatteras by lifting necessary current restrictions regarding the use of off-road vehicles.

The bill would allow corporations to dip right into Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, allowing for trees that started growing before the Revolutionary War to be felled.

And, if someone decided that development of surveillance equipment in a national park was a good idea — say on Chief Mountain in Glacier National Park — it could be installed without any public comment or even internal review process.

This last point was made by two farmers and ranchers from the Mexico and Canadian borders, with more than a century of land-use between the two.

These folks who work the land, who have toiled to create and produce what the land will provide to them and their families for years, those who know it best – oppose this bill.

“In Arizona,” the gentlemen write “we are concerned that poorly designed roads and fences will damage ongoing range land restoration work.

Private landowners have spent thousands of dollars and manpower hours restoring these lands to their original state, which could all be compromised by these bills.”

Another veteran publically denounced the bill in an op-ed, stating “As a veteran, a patriot of this nation and a Californian, I can’t stand by while these lands are threatened.

I’m proud to have worn this country’s uniform and I want to continue serving.

That’s why I’ve chosen to follow in the path of the great Teddy Roosevelt – a man who was both a soldier and a conservationist – and stand up for our public lands.”

That’s right.

A veteran, a rancher, a farmer, the Secretary of Homeland Security, are NOT extolling the virtues of a true wild, wild west.

The stewards of the land know that in order for crops to flourish;

In order to protect the Sweet Grass Hills, in Montana, a sacred location for many tribal ceremonies – and a vital source of water for surrounding communities that it is protected from mining and most motorized travel;

In order to preserve the incredible natural beauty and uniqueness that makes this land great;

We must protect it.

Over 100 years ago, Teddy Roosevelt addressed a crowd in Kansas, a state that knows its lands.

"I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land,” he said, “but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us...”

“Of all the questions which can come before this nation, short of the actual preservation of its existence in a great war –

There is none which compares in importance with the great central task of leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us.

I fear we miss the mark on today’s legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in my opposition.

Thank you.

Robert O (12)
Thursday June 28, 2012, 12:31 am
Thanks Cal.

Andrea Nemec (213)
Thursday June 28, 2012, 3:26 am
Noted and signed! Thanks!

Gloria picchetti (304)
Thursday June 28, 2012, 4:33 am

Mercedes P (54)
Thursday June 28, 2012, 7:17 am
Noted & signed! Thank you!

Nicole W (646)
Thursday June 28, 2012, 12:27 pm
signed and shared

Alison A (244)
Thursday June 28, 2012, 6:01 pm
Signed and noted, thanks Cal.

Victoria Pohrebna (279)
Saturday June 30, 2012, 1:34 am

Joe R (190)
Sunday July 1, 2012, 6:21 am
Signed and noted.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Environment

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.