Posted on 10/13/2005 5:50:09 PM PDT by Graybeard58
Despite Grand Canyon entrance fees that are set to rise $5 per car next year, some are saying the agency charged with protecting the park for future generations will still be millions of dollars short of what it needs to do the job right.
Employee housing is "abysmal," the park office that conducts scientific surveys is being "gutted" and archaeological sites that should get protection are being ignored as a result of perpetual budget shortfalls, say park supporters.
Scientists who have left in recent years haven't been replaced, leaving one Park Service wildlife biologist to monitor the threatened and endangered creatures living within the park's 1.3 million acres.
And the Grand Canyon, certainly known for its geology, has no park geologist and hasn't in recent memory, Grand Canyon spokeswoman Maureen Oltrogge confirmed, though there are some employees who've studied geology.
She did not know about science openings or proposed budget cuts, she said. Oltrogge declined to comment on whether the park's budget is adequate.
The park's previous top administrator, however, said it's a case of constantly doing more with less.
"The crisis is very real, and unfortunately I think the American people equate the fact that their restrooms are clean and that the roads don't have potholes in them to mean that everything's OK at the park, and that's not the case," former Grand Canyon superintendent Ron Arnberger said.
U.S. Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Flagstaff, along with congressmen Mark Souder of Indiana and Michael Turner of Ohio, will meet in Flagstaff today to discuss funding in the nation's parks.
Souder has proposed increasing the National Park Service budget by 15 percent per year. This year's federal budget cuts National Park funding by 3 percent.
When Arnberger managed the park, from 1994 to 2000, he killed a proposed study on how to manage the Colorado River because of lack of funds. He's now affiliated with the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees and has testified before Congress about shortfalls in national parks.
"While I was there, I must say the budgets were extremely tight and I had to make many, many tough choices," Arnberger said.
"If anything, the situation has not improved. If anything, it's gotten worse."
The park added employee housing during his tenure, but Arnberger estimated it was hundred of units less than what was needed.
"You still have people living in old, moth-eaten trailers that should've been salvaged and thrown away years ago," Arnberger said.
Grand Canyon operating budgets appropriated by Congress have ranged from $14 million to $19 million annually over the past 10 years.
The Sierra Club, National Parks Conservation Association, Grand Canyon Trust and Coalition of National Park Service Retirees all complain of underfunding in the nation's parks, creating a backlog in maintenance that is estimated at up to $6.5 billion, with a perpetual deficit for day-to-day expenses.
The deficit can only worsen with rising health care, gasoline and hurricane recovery costs, predicted Blake Selzer, of the National Parks Conservation Association.
"Parks like Grand Canyon, as well as the 387 other parks across the country, have had to absorb a lot of costs over past years," he said.
The Grand Canyon receives twice as many visitors as some of the other "crown jewels" like Yellowstone and Yosemite, but not more funding, they say.
"The science part of the Grand Canyon, which is the heart of the Grand Canyon, is being gradually gutted," said Jim McCarthy, vice chair of the Arizona chapter of the Sierra Club. "Those are the people that protect the resources of the park and those are some of the most important people at the park."
Northern Arizona University has a Web site that lists unfunded projects at each national park, hoping to link a researcher with a project.
Grand Canyon is listed as having 67 unfunded research projects, ranging from surveys for Mexican spotted owl nesting sites to mountain lion and mushroom studies, according to the site. Glen Canyon has 49 such projects listed. Walnut Canyon has six.
The Grand Canyon is already operating on two-thirds of the budget it needs and every department has been asked to cut budgets by 10 percent per year for each of the next four years, according to sources who have seen Park Service memos and a park business plan that has yet to be released.
But fees at the Grand Canyon are actually scheduled to increase next year, meaning the average driver would pay $25 to get in, as opposed to the current $20.
Those fees must, by law, go to projects for visitors or improvements, such as new restrooms, walkways, roads, potable water, campgrounds, fencing and transportation.
In recent years, an emergency services building has been constructed, Grandview Trail has been repaired and a landfill has been closed with money from entrance fees, among other projects, Oltrogge said.
Next year, when the entrance fee is raised, about $10 of every fee will be used to design a mass transit plan and the required environmental studies. Currently, about $3 of every fee goes for that purpose.
While there I couldn't help but notice cars streaming in there all day long and wonderded then what that did with all that money at $20 per car.
I see now that some of it is going to "monitor endangered species". How does "monitoring" them help them in any way?
Some of the money is going to "hurricane recovery costs". I do not recall a hurricane hitting that part of Arizona, I must start paying attention.
Mexican spotted owl nesting sites, mountain lion and mushroom studies. All hyped by the Sierra Club. I am so impressed.
Employee housing? They can provide their own housing.
The Grand Canyon got along fine for a very long time with no Federal funding at all.
Listed first, of course.
Do the housing like the Army. Contract with a private developer and guarantee occupancy with the tenant paying market rent. The NPS problem is they want the govt to buy the housing and then let the employees live on the cheap.
That's a crock. What do they need the money for? They don't have to dig the big hole in the ground out again every year.
They don't even provide enough parking for the visitors that come. Instead, they want to cram people into busses, provided at park expense, rather than let people drive themselves. At least now it isn't trains, like Clinton wanted.
The Grand Canyon couldn't be destroyed by visitors if they tried. From the bottom of the canyon, you can't even see the huge hotels on the rim. And from the south rim, you have to use a telescope to see the huge lodge on the north rim.
I think they should close the national park entirely, and lease the land along the rim to private companies and individuals. Make some CCR's about what you can do so people won't carve jeep trails down in it or other stupid stuff. Make sure there are access points to public trails. And that's it.
The private sector would turn it into a huge economic bonanza. The tax money alone would be more than what we're getting out of this now. The canyon is about 250 miles long, but the road only follows maybe 50 miles, out of perhaps 500+ miles along rim. There's not even a hiking trail along most of the rim.
The fact that the government can't make a go out of the most awe inspiring place on earth is evidence that they can't do anything right.
Scientists who have left in recent years haven't been replaced, leaving one Park Service wildlife biologist to monitor the threatened and endangered creatures living within the park's 1.3 million acres.
And the Grand Canyon, certainly known for its geology, has no park geologist and hasn't in recent memory,
Sky is falling! Sky is falling!.
No Geologist? Oh Gawd, the same, the horror.
One biologist to watch the frogs?
Leave the frogs alone. Leave the geology study to Universities with their own funding and their own PhDs, and just fence off the archeology sites.
It took millions of years to create, and it's not going away any time soon. And the lack of a few high paid government twits is not going to hasten its demise.
yep.
I have a real problem with nationl parks. Essentially they are taking a state's and keeping the state from using it as they best see fit.
The only real 'federal' land should be military reservations. No reason to have national parks except to buy votes and burn tax dollars.
Increase the entrance fee.
How much does it cost to "maintain" rocks?
Given the liability that the canyon represents, I think the only responsible thing to do is to fill it in.
When they have recovered enough, you can take them off the list! :-)
The perfect metaphor for big government - dumping money into a hole in the ground.
The canyon is, after all, a hole in the ground. The Dept. of the inferior has managed to fraudulently obtain waaaaay too much money to do essentially little to nothing.
Shut National Parks down and let the states take over. Just because Teddy Roosevelt wanted hunting grounds doesn't make them Constitutional.
Last time I looked, the Constitution did specify for what purposes the Feds could own land. Customs Houses, Navy yards, Post offices, and a few more. But not one word about national parks.
Are we still bound by the Constitution? Is it obligatory for all Americans? Here's what the first American President said:
"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people
to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution,
which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the
whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all." --George Washington
I've got a large ravine by my house and it doesn't receive any funding at all. This irks me to no end. That said, in the spirit of Ted Kennedy, I am thinking of seeking Congressional approval for my "Big Ditch." At least the gobbermint should give me enough scratch to hire Cletus up the road to drive his 56 Ford Pickup down here and haul off some of the old water heaters, beer cans, 3/4 empty Treflan drums and these rotted bags of DDT.
What's I goin' to do wifout my Fedrul Pograms? Who looks out for the little guy? After all....I just want my ditch clean for the children.
Well... That and Capitol Hill and the White House and the Supreme Court. We can't have an individual States controlling the land that the federal gov't operates from.
"We can't have an individual States controlling the land that the federal gov't operates from."
That's why DC was never made a state...
well, one of the reasons, anyway. There are other techinical reasons as well.
They need to build another $14 million toilet and redecorate the director's office.
I think we should hire a frog to watch the biologist.
It's more sensible and would be less expensive.
just in case you get there *ping*
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.