The news that Yosemite will rename several iconic places is deeply disturbing. That a former concessionaire, in a case of sour grapes, can trademark and demand payment for use of place names within a national park is just wrong. The company, Delaware North Companies, is claiming that the names of many historic sites within Yosemite actually belong to them, not to the American people. Places such as Curry Village, Ahwahnee Lodge, Wawona Hotel, and the popular Half Dome logo. Incredibly, Delaware North is even claiming that the name Yosemite National Park��belongs to them.

A few years ago, I participated in an inspirational retreat at the Ahwahnee Hotel, with dozens of other leaders to advance efforts to engage a greater diversity of Americans to come explore and enjoy Yosemite National Park. It was a special meeting in a special place, a place full of a rich history that includes visits from U.S. presidents and international heads of state. It even served as a hospital for veterans during World War II. It’s a place that belongs to our shared history and future. Changing its name, or the name of other public lands and landmarks, should be driven by a sense of justice and inclusivity, not by corporate greed.

It is petty that having already made billions of dollars��from selling food, merchandise, and lodging at our national parks to millions of visitors, Delaware North is essentially extorting taxpayers to allow Americans to keep what we already own. At a time when the rest of the country is celebrating the centennial of our national parks, Delaware North is chipping away their very foundation—the idea that these places belong to all Americans.

This is not isolated to just Yosemite National Park. Delaware North also has contracts to be the concessionaire for nine other outdoor treasures, including Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Olympic, Kings Canyon, Sequoia, and Shenandoah national parks. The company makes a routine business practice of stealthily gathering up rights to names synonymous with pieces of America, privatizing names widely regarded as in the public domain, including the U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame and the Space Shuttle Atlantis.

We must demand that Delaware North return our pieces of America before we must start referring to parks as “formerly known as…”. Please join the Sierra Club’s 2.4 million members and supporters and to the Jeremy Jacobs, the CEO of Delaware North, and tell him to withdraw the company’s lawsuit and allow the National Park Service to continue to allow all Americans the opportunity to share in the longstanding legacy of Yosemite and all of our national parks.

Dan Chu is the senior��director of the Sierra Club’s�����������貹������.

The post Op-Ed: Yosemite Is Losing to Corporate Greed appeared first on ���ϳԹ��� Online.

President Theodore Roosevelt , “There can be nothing in the world more beautiful than the Yosemite, the groves of the giant sequoias and redwoods, the Canyon of the Colorado, the Canyon of the Yellowstone, the Three Tetons; and our people should see to it that they are preserved for their children and their children’s children forever, with their majestic beauty all unmarred.”
��
Since Yellowstone��was established in 1872, our parks have been a refuge for people looking to connect with nature and themselves, and��the National Parks Service Centennial next year should be a celebration of this legacy. Be it parents bringing their children for a day hike along the Appalachian Trail, or veterans enjoying��the beauty of a country they served by camping in Yosemite, our national parks are something we must continue to protect—not give away to the oil and gas industry. Yet��Congress is currently considering a proposal to do just that.
��
Earlier this month, the House of Representatives approved the , a comprehensive energy bill. Tucked inside is the deceptively named National Energy Security Corridors Act, which would amend the Minerals Leasing Act to strip the requirement for Congressional approval of oil and gas pipeline construction within our national parks.��If this legislation were to be signed into law, we could expect to see companies like the ones��fracking��in the Marcellus Shale to construct��pipelines through places like the Appalachian Trail (which passes through Shenandoah and Great Smoky Mountains national parks).

When President Obama rejected the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, he put an end to the “all of the above” energy policy, and rightly pointed out that if we are to prevent the worst effects of climate change, we need to begin leaving some dirty fuels in the ground. Congress should be working with him to pass legislation that protects public health, our communities, our climate, and our national parks from the dangers of dirty fuels. (For exampke,��a bill from Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) would��ban the extraction of fossil fuels on public lands.)��But��by permitting the oil and gas industry to construct pipelines through our parks, Congress is building a bridge to 19th century energy sources at a time when we must be looking towards the future.
����
There's another quote from President Theodore Roosevelt I often think of:��“There are no words that can tell the hidden spirit of the wilderness that can reveal its mystery, its melancholy, and its charm.” Indeed, it is on account of this mystery, this melancholy, and this charm that millions of people visit our parks every year. Congress should celebrate our parks and what they offer,��not exploit them.
��
While H.R. 8 passed the House of Representatives earlier this month, the Senate has not yet taken the legislation up. But, that does not mean we can rest easy—in fact, we should be vigilant, and call our Senators to urge them to protect our national parks,��not destroy them.

The creation of our national parks is often referred to as America’s best idea;��allowing pipelines to be constructed through them may be our worst.

Dan Chu is the director of Sierra Club's campaign.

The post Op-Ed: The Gas and Oil Industry Is Encroaching on National Parks appeared first on ���ϳԹ��� Online.

On September 30, Congress allowed a relatively little-known but very important conservation provision to expire: The . While the average outdoor lover might not be familiar with this program, chances are good that they’ve enjoyed one of the places it’s helped protect.��

Over the years, it��has contributed tens of millions of dollars to protect lands in all 50 states. Thanks to the LWCF, visitors can enjoy areas in Mount Rainier;��Redwood and Acadia National Parks;��George Washington’s birthplace;��Brown v. the Board of Education historic sites;��Cape Hatteras in North Carolina and other national seashores;��and countless wildlife refuges, management areas, and access points. Closer to home, the fund has supported more than 40,000 state and local projects—ball fields, trails, parks, and community open spaces. Almost every county in the nation has a park project covered by the fund.

The fund uses royalty revenue from something dirty (offshore drilling in public waters)��to fund something clean—namely new conservation efforts. The idea is to bring balance to the use of our public resources. The monies are often used to match grants for state and local parks and recreation projects. They’re also used for voluntary buy-outs of private inholdings in national parks and wildlife areas that would otherwise be developed. It’s an idea that has been tremendously successful and widely supported. After all, who wants a beautiful overlook of a subdivision?

The fund even has strong bipartisan support in Congress. Yet, thanks to a handful of ideologues, it has expired. Put simply, the loss of the fund jeopardizes the continued conservation of our outdoors. Congress’ past refusal to fully fund the program has created a backlog of billions of dollars in needs��for��land acquisition, state and local park maintenance, and public access improvements. With the total loss of the program, even more projects will go unrealized.

This means that the pristine natural environment of Hawaii Volcanoes National Park’s Pohue Bay could become a resort, that plans to secure permanent public access to more than 7,000 acres of forest in the Northern Rockies could fall by the wayside, and that parts of Gettysburg National Military Park, including an Underground Railroad site, could be developed. But it’s not just national parks and historic sites at risk. Also affected are local projects like plans to relocate parts of California’s Pacific Crest Trail, the Appalachian Trail in Tennessee, and the New England National Scenic Trail in Massachusetts.

The loss of funding will have a direct impact on visitors to our public lands,��degrading their experience and hampering access. It also comes with a serious economic loss. A����found that every Land and Water Conservation Fund dollar spent generates four dollars in economic value��from natural resource goods and services provided by the lands—things like clean water, flood control, and pollination.��Fund investments also played a large role in many rural economies, supporting the public lands that drive outdoor recreation and tourism that are intimately tied to job growth��and economic stability.

The expiration of the fund eliminates an essential, dedicated funding stream from offshore royalties for the conservation of our public lands and parks. This is an issue we can't afford to be wrong on. If you're as incensed about this as we are, tell your members��of Congress to act quickly to reauthorize and fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund. As we approach the centennial of the National Park System, it’s the best way to secure the next century of conservation and a bright future for our great outdoors and for our children.

Dan Chu is the senior��director of the Sierra Club’s campaign.

The post Prospects Are Dim for America’s Great Outdoors appeared first on ���ϳԹ��� Online.