EDITORIAL: Downsize National Park Service, dumping costly, unpopular sites

President Obama wants to spend still more money on parks, asking Congress to approve a scheme to spend an additional $1.2 billion over the next three years. The cash would be earmarked to celebrate the National Park Service’s centennial anniversary in 2016. It would fund, among other projects, an expensive youth work program and provide more muscle for the federales to wrestle land from individual property owners.

Few national parks are financially self-sufficient. The rest are on the dole, requiring taxpayers to subsidize a failure to attract visitors, revenue and interest. Fees paid by park visitors fund only a nickel of every dollar devoured by the Park Service. Taxpayers fund the rest.

Playwright Eugene O’Neill’s hillside home in the San Francisco Bay is now a National Historic Site. It costs federal taxpayers $687,000 per year to keep open, though visitors trickle through at an average of just seven a day. That’s $270 for each and every visitor. In contrast, the Columbus, Miss., home of O’Neill’s contemporary, Tennessee Williams, was restored by private donors and is open to visitors at no cost to taxpayers.

“Similar to our entire country, it isn’t the Park System that needs revising, it’s the “Management” there of.”

Since retirement my wife and I have traveled extensively with our travel trailer. We have found state parks to be better maintained, and have better campgrounds and other facilities, than the national parks. National park campgrounds tend to be poorly maintained, have small sites, and lack the water and electric hookups of state and private campgrounds. Plus the government has been rapidly raising fees so these substandard facilities often cost as much or more as private or state alternatives outside the park. We’ve also found many visitor centers at national parks to be dirty, run down, and obsolete.

The reality is parks are attractive to visitors when they have well maintained, up-to-date facilities. When facilities are obsolete and deteriorating, they are not attractive to visitors and the neglect will negatively impact attendance.

To some degree I have the perception the management of the National Park Service would prefer people not visit the larger scenic parks. The environmentalist element in the NPS seems to be determined to make the parks pristine shrines to nature instead of places of natural beautiful citizens can enjoy. Certainly there is more emphasis on “primitive” camping than campgrounds for modern recreational vehicles. While I certainly appreciate that primitive camping affords one the opportunity to explore the remote areas of the parks, many retired and elderly visitors are not physically able to journey into the wilderness for days. Young families, traveling by RV, have limited vacation time and can’t spend days on the trail. RV’s allow millions of Americans of all ages an affordable way to experience the national parks. Parks should have modern facilities to accommodate overnight RV stays.

Many of the state parks were developed by the CCC during the Great Depression and have been maintained and modernized under the stewardship of the states. Today our national parks need infrastructure upgrading and could benefit from a CCC type program. We have a high young adult unemployment rate and we are spending billions on government programs that pay people to sit at home watching television. Why can’t some of these funds be redirected to creating real “shovel ready” jobs for 18-30 year olds in a new CCC in the national and state parks? Upgrade roads, modernize or build new facilities, clear new trails, etc. The young people might actually benefit from being out in nature learning something about hard physical work and seeing something other than a computer or smartphone screen.

With respect to the proliferation of parks my personal preference would be to focus the NPS on managing large properties with national beauty such as the Great Smokies, Yellowstone, and the Grand Canyon. With respect to the birthplaces of “famous” people, let states or private organizations manage those properties or allow them to be reused for other purposes. Private foundations do a good job owning and operating Mount Vernon and Monticello, the homes of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and those are national treasures. Quite frankly the homes of Carl Sandburg and Eugene O’Neill are not national treasures worthy of taxing the entire population to preserve. Privatize them and redirect the resources to improving the visitor experience at other locations.

To understand this, the scope and scale, you have to look at the money streams. There are several.

Sources of money: 1. OCS royalties. 2. Excise Taxes 3. DOT money. 4. Special appropriations.

OCS royalties.- In the 50's, to get the Submerged Lands Act passed, Eisenhower proposed and congress OKed a group of funding acts that would get money from the royalties that would be split between the feds and the states. The first(1960s) was the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In the 70s the park money fund and the historical/cultural site money fund were passed. Originally they were all based on matching state money, but now, park money and historical money require state, local, and private money.

Excise Tax money. The first was Pittman Robertson in the 30s aka Federal Aid to Wildlife an excise tax on hunting equip and supplies. Next was Dingall-Johnson in the 50s aka federal aid to fish. A tax on fishing equip and money. Then on outboard motor fuel. Then on large watercraft fuel. Treasury collects these taxes, turns it over to FWS, who grants it back to the states.

DOT money. Usually projects require an improved road or new road, parking lots, bike paths.

Special Appropriations. Sometimes a special project comes along after all the regular money has been spent and Congress has to appropriate it for the project. When the BACA #1 Ranch came up for sell, Congress didn't want the developers to get it so they came up with a million to buy it and turn it into Valles Caldera(Forest Service). When the Rio Grand Ranch came up for sell, Texas didn't want the Park Service(Big Bend Natl Park) to get it so Texas bought it.

So all this money is accumulating, how is it split up. In congress the appropriation committees and chairmen(Congressional Cardinals) have a lot of influence. The Regular committee and chairmen. Earmarks. What Congress people doesn't get their hands on, the Prez does. Recall the two senator gals from CA were constantly complaining that Bush was stealing their money and sending it to Texas. Illinois is in high cotton with Obama.

And once the states get their cuts of the money, its just as bad. There it is all fungible.

Its not uncommon to is a single project or an area like the Chesapeake Bay receiving funneled money from all these different sources.

We call this systemic corruption or institutional corruption.

So just remember, if North Dakota gets the historical site money to build the Lawrence Welk museum, then Texas is gonna get some for the Fort Worth stockyards

We have a high young adult unemployment rate and we are spending billions on government programs that pay people to sit at home watching television. Why can’t some of these funds be redirected to creating real “shovel ready” jobs for 18-30 year olds in a new CCC in the national and state parks? Upgrade roads, modernize or build new facilities, clear new trails, etc. The young people might actually benefit from being out in nature learning something about hard physical work and seeing something other than a computer or smartphone screen.

While I agree, you came very close to the line of fire with that one. Good thing you only mentioned an age demographic or the knicker twisters around here would be having a contest.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.