A conservation group wants people heading to the polls to consider an issue that hasn't come up on the campaign trail - preserving and funding the national parks.

The National Parks Action Fund Scorecard tallies the voting records for U.S. House members on bills about park funding, endangered species, and oil and gas development in and around parks.

In Wisconsin's delegation, all six Republican House members got failing grades on the scorecard - and the two Democrats got 'A's.

Kristen Brengel, executive director of the National Parks Action Fund, said they're not trying to pick on members of Congress - but hope the scrutiny will help to change some votes moving forward.

"This is just part of our values system," said Brengel. "Do we love these places? Do we want to take care of them? Do we want to make sure they have adequate park rangers in them? And this vote is just a direct way to tell whether or not your member of Congress cares about the future of our national parks."

Overall, Brengel said, more House members received 'F's than 'A's - in part because last year, the House voted to cut funding for national parks by 13%.

The scorecard is online at nationalparksaction.org.

John Anfinson - retired superintendent of the Mississippi National River and Recreation Unit of the National Park Service - said keeping the park system in good shape should be a bipartisan priority, because people of all political views value national parks.

He said the pandemic sparked a newfound appreciation for access to the outdoors because of the safe retreat the parks offered to all.

Studies show people still want easy access - and Anfinson said it's good business to provide it.

"For every dollar America puts into national parks, they get about $15 back," said Anfinson. "It's a money generator for America. So, I think it's a positive thing to fund national parks. It brings money back instead of taking money away."

Even without a national park, the national scenic trails and other lands managed by the Park Service here in Wisconsin contributed more than $64 million in visitor spending last year to the state's economy, and supported over 900 jobs.

A national land trust has purchased 44,000 acres of forest in Northwestern Maine to keep it wild and free for generations to come.

The Hilton Family Forest near Jackman contains mountain peaks, waterfalls and vital habitats for rare plant and animal species like the golden eagle. It is also a popular recreational area for hiking, biking and fishing.

Tom Duffus, vice president and northeast representative for The Conservation Fund, said the land will remain open to the public.

"We want to just keep things the same," Duffus explained. "What we've learned from this community so far is how important the stability of these landscapes is to them."

Duffus pointed out his organization purchased the land from the Hilton Family for $44 million and is now working with area communities on a permanent conservation solution.

Duffus stressed protecting the forest from subdivision or development contributes to the state's climate goals and improves climate and wildlife resilience. He added the land will also continue to provide revenue and jobs in the commercial sugaring, forest products and tourism industries.

"Working forests work for nature, they work for people," Duffus emphasized. "That is really the point of keeping all that going in a real sea change of land use that is happening in the forested landscapes around the country."

Maine is the most forested state in the nation and most of that forest is privately owned. Duffus noted there has been high turnover in land ownership since the 1990s, when paper companies began to sell their properties to timber investors. He added The Conservation Fund is helping to build a growing network of protected lands for the public good.

Advocates for public lands access are raising alarms about a lawsuit that could be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Utah has filed a suit arguing the U.S. Bureau of Land Management is holding about 18.5 million acres of land in the state unconstitutionally, saying it can't keep unappropriated land in perpetuity.

Idaho and twelve other states have joined the suit. They say federally controlled land should be transferred to states.

But Executive Director of the Idaho Wildlife Federation, Nick Fasciano, said that would be disastrous for public lands and the people who use them.

"State ownership of land at this scale is a direct path to privatization," said Fasciano. "State budgets do not have the capacity to manage lands at enormous scale like this without selling it off. Idaho has a constitutional mandate to maximize the financial return of the land under its management."

The U.S. Justice Department said Utah's claims are "without merit" in a brief filed with the Supreme Court.

The BLM manages nearly 12 million acres of land in Idaho.

Outdoor recreation has been increasing in Idaho, adding nearly $4 million to the economy in 2023.

Fasciano said hunters, anglers, and other recreationists fear privatization will mean they're cut off from access to public lands.

But he noted that when Congress tried to transfer public lands to states in 2017, there was an overwhelming response from the hunting community and the legislation was dropped.

"Hunters," said Fasciano, "we spend so much of our lives on public lands that we're very invested in these things continuing to be open and public, and prepared to get pretty loud in opposition to this sort of idea."

Fasciano said public input on how lands would be managed could be reduced if the state is in charge as well.

"The federal government has the ability to hold lands in perpetuity and has the financial capability to manage them," said Fasciano. "The state does not. And so, it's not a question of local versus federal management. It's a question of whether or not these are open and accessible to the public and available for habitat for wildlife or if they're not. And that's the big fear."




get more stories like this via email

Members of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance are supporting two moratoriums on concentrated animal feeding operations to be voted on today by the Arkansas Administrative Rules subcommittee of the Arkansas Legislative Council.

Concentrated animal feeding operations are large agriculture facilities which keep animals confined in small spaces.

Gordon Watkins, president of the alliance, said Regulations 5 and 6 include a moratorium on swine Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in the watershed, but Regulation 5 does not include adequate public notification requirements. He pointed out the regulation only requires a request for a permit be posted on the Department of Agriculture website.

"If someone wants to put a 10,000-animal hog-confinement facility next door to you, you'd probably like to know about that," Watkins contended. "Secondly, in order to oppose a permit -- legally -- it's a 30-day comment period, and unless you submit comments on it, you do not have standing to legally challenge a permit."

He acknowledged Regulation 6 has stronger notification requirements which include notifying nearby landowners, publishing the permit request in the local newspaper and contacting school superintendents within a 10-mile radius of the proposed facility.

The last concentrated animal feeding operation allowed near the Buffalo National River, C and H Swine, was shut down in 2019. Watkins added he is a farmer but feels the area needs to be protected.

"It's the first National River ever created in the country. It's also a state icon," Watkins stressed. "If you look at any of the literature, put out by the department of tourism to promote the state, you'll see images from the Buffalo National River. It's an economic engine to some of the poorest counties in the state."

It was discovered in 2018 the C and H swine operation contaminated the water quality in Big Creek and the Buffalo River. Today's meeting is scheduled for 2 p.m.


get more stories like this via email