Photo by Aniket Deole on Unsplash
March 07, 2026
ALTERNET
A longtime conservation advocate warned on Saturday that President Donald Trump’s recent park policies will likely take a toll on an innocent party — Yosemite Park wildlife bears.
Recalling a 2021 incident in which a mother bear stayed by her dead cub for hours after it was hit by a car, conservation advocate Beth Pratt wrote for the San Francisco Gate that Trump’s new Yosemite Park superintendent, Ray McPadden, has imposed a new policy which makes it likely future incidents like that will occur much more often.
McPadden recently claimed that there is “zero evidence” crowds adversely impact Yosemite’s ecosystem or landscape in “any consequential way” to explain removing the park’s reservation system.
“As someone who has spent the past 30 years documenting and studying Yosemite’s remarkable wildlife, I was astounded by the claim of ‘zero evidence,’” Pratt wrote. “I have witnessed it firsthand. And decades of park research and rigorous planning efforts demonstrate that there is substantial evidence that overcrowding in Yosemite has a profound impact on the park — and the bears and other wildlife that call it home.”
Pratt continued, “Sadly, dozens of bears are hit, and sometimes killed, on park roads each year. Vehicle strikes are now one of the leading causes of death for bears in Yosemite. The park has posted warning signs at hot spot collision areas, attempting to compel visitors to slow down for the wildlife, typically to no avail. And as visitation increases, the chance of a bear being hit by a vehicle also typically increases, according to my analysis of visitation trends and bear collisions. Keep adding more cars, and you’ll likely be causing the death of more bears.”
McPadden is not alone in claiming there will be no harm to wildlife in increasing tourism to Yosemite. Pratt also quoted Congressman Tom McClintock, who wrote on Facebook that the closure “is good news … for the gateway communities that depend on Yosemite commerce for their livelihoods.” Pratt begged to differ.
“Despite these misguided celebrations over the reversing of our reservation system in pursuit of greater business profits, in Yosemite, overcrowding can mean a wild bear who once frolicked in a meadow is mangled and killed by a car,” Pratt wrote. “Shouldn’t reducing overcrowding and saving the lives of the park’s bears be what we celebrate in our national parks?”
Trump’s opposition to strict conservation policies at Yosemite is consistent with his larger anti-environmentalist philosophy. Writing for The Guardian earlier this week, Damian Carrington reported that Earth is passing a “point of no return” toward becoming a “hothouse planet” due to climate change. Trump, like most of the Republican Party, denies the scientific reality of climate change and supports enriching the fossil fuel industry.
Additionally, Trump has used his power over the Interior Department to take down hundreds of signs, merchandise and presentations by the National Park Service that run counter to the administration’s ideological agenda. This includes content about climate change, slavery and Native American issues were among the subjects to come under scrutiny. For this reason, the Interior Department is currently being sued by the National Parks Conservation Association.
Recalling a 2021 incident in which a mother bear stayed by her dead cub for hours after it was hit by a car, conservation advocate Beth Pratt wrote for the San Francisco Gate that Trump’s new Yosemite Park superintendent, Ray McPadden, has imposed a new policy which makes it likely future incidents like that will occur much more often.
McPadden recently claimed that there is “zero evidence” crowds adversely impact Yosemite’s ecosystem or landscape in “any consequential way” to explain removing the park’s reservation system.
“As someone who has spent the past 30 years documenting and studying Yosemite’s remarkable wildlife, I was astounded by the claim of ‘zero evidence,’” Pratt wrote. “I have witnessed it firsthand. And decades of park research and rigorous planning efforts demonstrate that there is substantial evidence that overcrowding in Yosemite has a profound impact on the park — and the bears and other wildlife that call it home.”
Pratt continued, “Sadly, dozens of bears are hit, and sometimes killed, on park roads each year. Vehicle strikes are now one of the leading causes of death for bears in Yosemite. The park has posted warning signs at hot spot collision areas, attempting to compel visitors to slow down for the wildlife, typically to no avail. And as visitation increases, the chance of a bear being hit by a vehicle also typically increases, according to my analysis of visitation trends and bear collisions. Keep adding more cars, and you’ll likely be causing the death of more bears.”
McPadden is not alone in claiming there will be no harm to wildlife in increasing tourism to Yosemite. Pratt also quoted Congressman Tom McClintock, who wrote on Facebook that the closure “is good news … for the gateway communities that depend on Yosemite commerce for their livelihoods.” Pratt begged to differ.
“Despite these misguided celebrations over the reversing of our reservation system in pursuit of greater business profits, in Yosemite, overcrowding can mean a wild bear who once frolicked in a meadow is mangled and killed by a car,” Pratt wrote. “Shouldn’t reducing overcrowding and saving the lives of the park’s bears be what we celebrate in our national parks?”
Trump’s opposition to strict conservation policies at Yosemite is consistent with his larger anti-environmentalist philosophy. Writing for The Guardian earlier this week, Damian Carrington reported that Earth is passing a “point of no return” toward becoming a “hothouse planet” due to climate change. Trump, like most of the Republican Party, denies the scientific reality of climate change and supports enriching the fossil fuel industry.
Additionally, Trump has used his power over the Interior Department to take down hundreds of signs, merchandise and presentations by the National Park Service that run counter to the administration’s ideological agenda. This includes content about climate change, slavery and Native American issues were among the subjects to come under scrutiny. For this reason, the Interior Department is currently being sued by the National Parks Conservation Association.
Trump targets hundreds of National Park signs for 'ideological indoctrination'
A U.S. National Park Service Ranger wears an NPS patch in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area near Page, Arizona, U.S., May 15, 2025. REUTERS/Rebecca Noble
Hundreds of signs, merchandise and presentations by the National Park Service have been flagged by President Donald Trump’s administration for possible removal as part of its war against “ideological indoctrination.”
According to a NOTUS review of the material, an evaluation reveals that "in many instances, park staff acknowledged" the material was factual.
The removal reports were recently published online by an anonymous federal government employee and first reported by the Washington Post.
The removal requests were made to national parks, monuments and other sites. The order targets content that the administration deems “partisan” or “disparaging," according to Trump's executive order. Slavery, climate change and Native American issues were among the subjects to come under scrutiny.
The National Parks Conservation Association sued the Interior Department this month over removal of such content from park sites.
Whether the Interior Department and National Park Service subsequently reviewed each of the content reports isn’t clear. It has also avoided specifics on how much content is being removed or altered.
Molly Blake, a team member at Save Our Signs, told NOTUS the group has tracked hundreds of signs, displays and other material removed since Trump issued the executive order.
“The spreadsheet shows that the message that was sent is that we can’t talk about times in American history where people in power hurt other people. We can’t talk about times in American history where people’s civil rights were violated,” Blake said. “And that’s a really killing and disturbing development.”
A National Park Service spokesperson issued a statement calling such claims false.
The executive order has already had a chilling effect in some cases.
An exhibit at the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park that explores how people from different backgrounds can interpret archaeology in different ways was flagged as “factually accurite [sic], but submitting for review out of an abundance of caution,” the report said.
Another report that mentioned how Native American people were removed during development of the Transcontinental Railroad was also flagged, despite also being tagged as accurate by the reporting party.
“We understand a lot of folks are responding under duress, and I think that kind of comes out of some of the comments that have been leaked,” Blake said. “What I think is also just especially insidious is there’s no clear shared understanding of what it means to be quote-unquote ‘disparaging or inappropriate.’ And so then you get into these absurd situations where you’re reporting things that are historically accurate.”
A U.S. National Park Service Ranger wears an NPS patch in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area near Page, Arizona, U.S., May 15, 2025. REUTERS/Rebecca Noble
March 06, 2026
ALTERNET
Hundreds of signs, merchandise and presentations by the National Park Service have been flagged by President Donald Trump’s administration for possible removal as part of its war against “ideological indoctrination.”
According to a NOTUS review of the material, an evaluation reveals that "in many instances, park staff acknowledged" the material was factual.
The removal reports were recently published online by an anonymous federal government employee and first reported by the Washington Post.
The removal requests were made to national parks, monuments and other sites. The order targets content that the administration deems “partisan” or “disparaging," according to Trump's executive order. Slavery, climate change and Native American issues were among the subjects to come under scrutiny.
The National Parks Conservation Association sued the Interior Department this month over removal of such content from park sites.
Whether the Interior Department and National Park Service subsequently reviewed each of the content reports isn’t clear. It has also avoided specifics on how much content is being removed or altered.
Molly Blake, a team member at Save Our Signs, told NOTUS the group has tracked hundreds of signs, displays and other material removed since Trump issued the executive order.
“The spreadsheet shows that the message that was sent is that we can’t talk about times in American history where people in power hurt other people. We can’t talk about times in American history where people’s civil rights were violated,” Blake said. “And that’s a really killing and disturbing development.”
A National Park Service spokesperson issued a statement calling such claims false.
The executive order has already had a chilling effect in some cases.
An exhibit at the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park that explores how people from different backgrounds can interpret archaeology in different ways was flagged as “factually accurite [sic], but submitting for review out of an abundance of caution,” the report said.
Another report that mentioned how Native American people were removed during development of the Transcontinental Railroad was also flagged, despite also being tagged as accurate by the reporting party.
“We understand a lot of folks are responding under duress, and I think that kind of comes out of some of the comments that have been leaked,” Blake said. “What I think is also just especially insidious is there’s no clear shared understanding of what it means to be quote-unquote ‘disparaging or inappropriate.’ And so then you get into these absurd situations where you’re reporting things that are historically accurate.”
