red_flanders said:jmdirt said:red_flanders said:jmdirt said:Your first point is correct. However, the park director has political pressure, that will influence his decision (and I strongly believe it did in this case). Which slides directly into your second point. Park directors (we're not talking about every ranger, tour guide, etc. who loves the parks) have to answer to the feds (I guess technically they are feds) and there is a political (national) agenda for keeping the parks viable.
Thanks. What specifically is the nature of the political pressure, and from whom is it coming? Why do you believe the pressure existed and was a factor?
Sorry if this pressure is outlined upthread and I missed it, I was simply reacting to what read as vague distrust of experts.
The pressure is coming from Jarvis, and trickling down to each park director. The parks make about $25 billion a year.
"As managers of Yellowstone National Park, we balance the preservation of park resources with public safety," said Yellowstone National Park Superintendent Dan Wenk. "Our decision takes into account the facts of the case, the goals of the bear management program and the long-term viability of the grizzly bear population as a whole, rather than an individual bear."
First let me say I see nothing wrong with this approach. The policy seems reasonable and well-considered.
Is the argument here that the park managers acted against policy due to intervention from Jonathan Jarvis?
Is the argument that park policy is wrong, and that policy was set with some undue or unwarranted influence of money or Jonathan Jarvis?
Is there any evidence Jarvis influenced policy or the decision to kill this bear in some inappropriate way?
Either way, is there a better policy that folks are espousing?
Honest questions. I've looked and can't find any answers to my questions. Lots of complaining about the decision and blame-assigning and accusations of "politics" (without presenting any evidence), but no alternate suggestions on what's to be done in a case like this.
What policy? All that very general statement says is that they can do whatever they want. If the park policy is to kill Griz who kill people hiking in OFF TRAIL areas, then yes the policy is wrong. Is there evidence that Jarvis wasn't part of the decision? If that is the case there is more wrong than it appears. My alternative suggestion is to let wild areas be wild (it wasn't like the Griz was in the parking lot at the lodge).