PDA

View Full Version : Editorial: A fitting way to mark national parks' centennial



tanya
03-04-2007, 10:56 AM
Our national parks are hurting.

The National Park Service operating budget, adjusted for inflation, has dropped nearly 20 percent in the past 25 years. There are fewer park rangers and education programs. Visitors find crumbling roads, outdated displays and poorly maintained campgrounds and trails.

All of this is detailed in "Faded Glory," a 2005 report from the National Parks Conservation Association, which concluded that the nation's parks have been "withering for years, suffering without sufficient staff and operating funds."


The nation faced a similar situation after World War II. Then, as now, the parks suffered neglect, deterioration and budget cutbacks. Then, as now, fixing things required a lot more than a one-year budget increase.

So in 1956, parks director Conrad Wirth launched a 10-year project called "Mission 66" to prepare the parks for their 50th anniversary in 1966. The aim, wrote Wirth, was to "overcome the inroads of neglect and to restore to the American people a National Park System adequate for their needs." Though Congress had to approve annual appropriations, President Eisenhower asked for funding to cover an entire decade. Congress followed through each year.

It will take a similar 10-year commitment to restore the parks today for their 100th anniversary in 2016. The nation is already a year behind in what should have been a decade-long undertaking, so we need to do a march in quick-time to catch up.

Members of Congress, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein, introduced a National Park Centennial Act in 2005. It went nowhere. But things have changed. Democrats now control Congress, and Feinstein chairs the Senate's Appropriations subcommittee on the Interior.

There also is a new secretary of the interior, Dirk Kempthorne, who announced a "National Park Centennial Initiative" last month.

By the Park Service's 100th birthday, Kempthorne said, "There will be new and improved visitor centers, trails, campgrounds and other facilities; more ranger-led programs; greater volunteerism and philanthropy." The initiative starts with the first year of a 10-year funding request that President Bush has sent to Congress. All 390 national parks will benefit from increased funding for park programs and projects.

This is good news indeed. A one-year budget blip can't restore the parks' lost luster. That will take a sustained, cumulative commitment.

As with Mission 66 a half-century ago, Kempthorne has made it clear that the upcoming 100th anniversary provides a "great opportunity to think big, to act boldly on behalf of national parks, to develop a 10-year plan to prepare national parks for the future."

One 21st century idea worth spreading is the free shuttle system pioneered in 2000 by Zion National Park in Utah. Traffic, noise and exhaust diminish the parks. It's time to get people out of their cars and into shuttles. Grand Teton and Grand Canyon are moving in this direction. The next step is to take the shuttle systemwide.

The creation of national parks is a unique American contribution to the world, but the nation has become complacent. To prepare for the 100th anniversary, we need to stop taking our national parks for granted and take steps to restore their luster for a second century.


http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/131846.html

sparker1
03-04-2007, 11:40 AM
No question the park system is in trouble. Huge increases in attendance couple with budget cuts have really hurt. In addition to increased government funding, I'd like to see fees increase. $20 for a family to spend a week visiting a NP is ludicrous. That same family will spend thousands visitng all the theme parks in Orlando. Sure it might hurt attendance, but that's not altogether bad. I'd like to see investment in facilities that will pay dividends. For example, more and better campgrounds that would attract RV's, which currently spend good money to stay just outside the NPs. I'd like to see lesser parks get a little development to attract more people. (I understand many here don't won't masses entering their domains, but the parks were intended to be "for the people" not just those young enough and fit enough to rappel in.) I think Arches and Zion are good examples of parks that provide access for the masses and still reserve some wilderness for the few. And yes, shuttles seem to be a good thing.

price1869
03-05-2007, 10:19 AM
Yeah,

I wasn't too stoked when my pass cost me $80 this year, but I guess it's a small price to pay.

Then again, The benefits that I get out of the Park system are . . . um . . . conservation? Sort of. If they closed down the park system, would there be fewer people, and therefore better conservation? I don't see that many visitors to the swell or robbers roost.

I have more thoughts, but I'll let the discussion heat up more.

R
03-05-2007, 10:35 AM
My friend David and I refer to the unwashed 90% of National Park visitors (the ones who never get more than 100 yards from a paved road) as Marklars. It doesn't take a lot of effort to get away from them.

An interesting side note about parks and their popularity: the trail at the north end of the Devil's Garden in Arches is called the "Primitive Loop." But every trail in Canyonlands is more primitive than that. I guess any trail is primitive in flip-flops. :roll:

gonzo
03-05-2007, 11:07 AM
I'll just quote Edward Abbey here:



What can I tell them? Sealed in their metallic shells like molluscs on wheels, how can I pry the people free? The auto as a tin can, the park ranger as an opener. Look here, I want to say, for godsake folks get out of them there machines, take off those ****ing sunglasses and unpeel both eyeballs, look around; throw away those goddamned idiotic cameras! For chrissake folks what is this life if full of care we have no time to stand and stare? eh? Take off your shoes for awhile, unzip your fly, piss hearty, dig your toes in the hot sand, feel that raw and rugged earth, split a couple of big toenails, draw blood! Why not?...Yes sir, yes madam, I entreat you, get out of those motorized wheelchairs, get off your foam rubber backsides, stand up straight like men! like women! like human beings! and walk - walk - WALK upon our sweet and blessed land!


The parks are there so we can connect with and enjoy the wilderness. If we keep developing them to make them accessible to everyone (and everything) we're losing what makes those lands special. We might as well just go to Disneyland.