It was a story that was custom-designed to get attention. In a press release dated December 28, 2006, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) announced that the Bush administration was forbidding National Park Service rangers from revealing the true age of the Grand Canyon - to avoid offending the sensibilities of their fundementalist visitors. The release is here if you want to read it.
A couple of diaries here and here discussed it either directly or indirectly, and got quite a bit of attention.
The fact that it was coming from what many of us believe to be a reputable source (and I personally think that PEER is a great organization), and despite the fact that it just SOUNDED so damn true-to-form for this administration, key parts of it are proving to be false.
Evidence below...
Kurt Repanshek hosts a wonderful blog called National Parks Traveler. He has been cautiously following the story, and finally concluded that PEER's claim that NPS employees were being muzzled was just plain false. See his discussion of the issue here.
The key quote from the article:
I tried last week to reach Maureen Oltrogge, Grand Canyon's public information officer, but she was on vacation. Next I tried Pete Hart, the park's acting assistant superintendent, but he too was out of the office. With Monday and Tuesday being federal holidays, I anguished as other blogs ran with the story.
Today that wait was vindicated, as word came from Hart that PEER's allegations -- that "Park employees are not allowed to reveal the true age of the formation for fear of offending Christians," that "In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology," and "Employees of the park are not permitted to give an official estimate of the canyon's geological
age, and are instead required to reply with 'no comment' if posed with the question" -- are totally false.
I have also noticed in a private email group for retired NPS employees that Bill Wade, a very prominent member of the very vocal Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, has independently come to the same conclusion. And Pete Hart, by the way, is an NPS employee temporarily pulled out of retirement who has nothing to lose or to gain career-wise with the Bushies.
Repanshek goes on to add, however, that:
Now, one piece of PEER's release that comes pretty close to standing up is the group's claim that the Park Service has failed to review the propriety of the park's bookstores to sell "Grand Canyon: A Different View." This book, by Tom Vail, claims that the Grand Canyon was created by the great flood that forced Noah to take to his ark. PEER would like it banned from the park.
Now, I say the claim "comes pretty close" to being true because the book has indeed been discussed within the agency but no final, official, decision has been reached by the agency's Office of Policy. Barna tells me that while some geologists within the Park Service think the book shouldn't be sold, others on the agency's interpretive staff believe park bookstores should carry material that addresses a wide range of topics and views.
So the entire press release isn't one big falsehood, but the part that got the most attention just doesn't pass muster.
Just goes to show you have to be careful with what you run with, no matter how "true" is sounds and who is saying it. I really admire Kurt Repanshek's patience in that regard.
And just to make absolutely certain that I'm not misunderstood - this is in no way a defense of the Bush administration, whom I have nothing but utter disgust for. Just a friendly reminder to keep checking the facts so we can make sure our claims are as bulletproof as possible.