Originally Posted by
jon c.
This really doesn't reflect reality. Most park managers are folks who have dedicated their lives to the protection of these resources. Given their druthers they would likely restrict access even more, but they do have to balance that against the public's desire to see these wonderful lands that they collectively own. There are at times political pressures to reduce areas set aside as wilderness, but overall I think the history of the park service and other natural resource management agencies has not shown any bias on the part of managers against protection of these lands. People who go into this field generally do it as a labor of love and they don't deserve such spurious accusations.
I've done some bicycle touring in a few national parks and several national forests. During my times in those places I have talked with a fair number of rangers, campground hosts and other NPS and U.S.F.S. employees. What you wrote is accurate, especially the last sentence. I will never forget the time a ranger came patrolling through a campground in Glacier National Park while I was there during a tour. Two women had recently arrived, left a picnic basket on their picnic table and walked off. Right out of a Yogi cartoon. The ranger was pissed as hell because of the potential for bear interaction and what often becomes of bears once they get a taste of human food. Indeed, maybe 5 years ago a bear in Glacier was destroyed. It had broken into a car to get food that was visible inside a visitor's vehicle, which is against park rules. The bear was relocated but came back and broke into another car to get food that was again left out in the open. You could tell the person who wrote the report about the destruction was pissed as all get out at the visitors whose selfish behavior had left the NPS with no choice but to destroy the animal lest it be sued if someone was later injured or killed by it. A fed bear is a dead bear.
These people care deeply about what they do and the environments they work in. Anyone who thinks otherwise knows nothing of the subject.