View Full Version : National parks cutting back on services, raising fees
Rain Man
05-12-2006, 14:51
And how much of a tax break did the Repubs just vote this week for the super-uber-wealthy???
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060512/pl_usatoday/nationalparkscuttingbackonservicesraisingfees
"Millions of visitors to national parks across the country this summer will find higher fees, closed facilities, reduced maintenance and fewer rangers to explain the natural wonders because of the squeeze of tight budgets.
"From Maine to California, park managers are struggling with higher fixed costs and operating budgets that haven't kept pace with inflation.
"In Colorado, Rocky Mountain National Park, visited by 3 million people annually, has mothballed one of its six visitor centers and consolidated jobs.
"In Montana, Glacier National Park has stopped providing campers with drinkable water at three campgrounds.
"In Pennsylvania, Gettysburg National Military Park cut back winter visiting hours and reduced its permanent staff - losing workers who help maintain the park's 100-plus historic structures and Civil War cannons.
"In Maine, Acadia National Park has not filled 14 jobs, including rangers who provide law enforcement and act as educational guides for tourists.
"The problem is the (funding) increases we've been getting are insufficient to keep pace" with higher costs, says Acadia's deputy superintendent, Len Bobinchock.
"Fees at 22 parks are going up this year. At Death Valley National Park in California, entrance fees per auto are doubling to $20. At Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in Arizona, annual park passes will cost $30, up from $20.
"National parks are the soul of America, and we are neither taking care of them nor enabling the Park Service to fully inspire and teach visitors," says Tom Kiernan, president of the National Parks and Conservation Association, which lobbies for the parks.
"Last year, more than 273 million people visited the 390 parks, monuments, recreation areas and other sites in the 83 million-acre national park system.
"A study of 12 popular parks issued last month by the
Government Accountability Office, Congress' investigative arm, found that eight weren't getting enough funds to keep up with inflation, and all 12 were cutting services, including "visitor center hours, educational programs, basic custodial duties and law enforcement."
"Congressional funding for daily park operations was $1.03 billion in fiscal 2005, a slight decline from fiscal 2001 when adjusted for inflation, according to the GAO.
"These are challenging times," says National Park Service spokeswoman Elaine Sevy. Park employees "are working very hard to not affect visitors and resource-protection programs."
Rain Man
05-12-2006, 14:54
More of the same...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-11-national-parks_x.htm
"At Gettysburg National Military Park in Pennsylvania, Superintendent John Latschar recalls an old TV commercial to illustrate the dangers of continued tight funding for the nation's park system.
"In that 1971 Fram oil filter ad, a mechanic tells a customer, "You can pay me now" — by replacing the filter — or "You can pay me later" — by replacing the engine.
"As park spending power is eroded by inflation and rising costs for salaries and other expenses, Latschar says he's not changing oil filters as much as he should at his Civil War battlefield park.
"So far we haven't had to replace an engine because of that. But if this trend isn't reversed within the next several years, we'll be in the engine-replacement business."
"It's an apt description for what many managers are going through at the 390 national parks, monuments, historic sites, recreation areas and other facilities run by the National Park Service. The parks have an overall budget of about $2.2 billion, which includes both operating costs and funds for construction projects.
"The Bush administration has asked for a $23 million increase in basic park operation spending — not including projects like building construction.
"That increase for the fiscal year starting in October would mean a total jump in basic park funding of 19% since fiscal 2001, Park Service Director Fran Mainella told a House subcommittee in March.
"Last week, an Appropriations subcommittee in the House of Representatives added $18 million in operating funds, though final approval is uncertain.
"Mandated pay and benefit increases and rising fuel and utility costs are forcing park superintendents to make sometimes painful decisions.
"To keep a healthy number of seasonal employees during peak visitor months, Acadia National Park in Maine has not been filling full-time jobs that come vacant due to retirements and transfers, Deputy Superintendent Len Bobinchock says.
"I think we've done a very good job of keeping the impacts obscure so the general public doesn't notice," he says. "But internally we're feeling the impact."
"An example of the pinch: Three years ago the park was running 120 interpretive programs for visitors per week. That was cut to 100, meaning fewer tourists get explanations about the park's history.
"Subtle changes that visitors might not notice are also taking place at Gettysburg, where eight of the 13 full-time positions lost since 2001 have been in maintenance.
"It's a key function at the Civil War battlefield, which has more than 100 historic buildings that require lots of care, Latschar says.
"Also lost: positions for three seasonal workers who helped visitors find overflow parking lots in peak summer months. In the next few months, Latschar also expects to lose a law enforcement ranger.
"At Yosemite National Park in California, the full range of traditional visitor services is still being offered, says park spokesman Scott Gediman, but volunteers are increasingly doing jobs once performed by regular Park Service employees.
"For example, five years ago, the park had 45 seasonal rangers giving talks to visitors. Now, the park has just eight.
"The gap has been filled by the Yosemite Association, a "friends of the park" group that supplements funding. In addition, the concession company that runs hotels and other private tourist facilities offers campfire talks and other visitor services.
"The budget crunch has prompted the park service to take a hard look at what it calls its "core" operations, a system-wide review that has been completed at 53 parks.
"The analyses, which will stretch through 2011, began in the Rocky Mountain region as "a way to restore some credibility" to how parks spend and ask for money, regional spokesman Rick Frost says.
"At Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado, the process led to the closing of one of six visitor centers, saving $36,000 annually. The Lily Lake center served just 35,000 of the 1.25 million tourists who use the park's visitor centers each year, says park spokeswoman Kyle Patterson.
"Park officials say the review is a businesslike approach the private sector routinely uses.
"We've been criticized for making decisions by the seat of our pants," says Elaine Sevy, a Park Service spokeswoman in Washington.
we're lucky bush hasn't sold the national parks
SGT Rock
05-12-2006, 15:20
I thought there was a new law on that or something. Not parks, but some national forest lands.
I thought there was a new law on that or something. Not parks, but some national forest lands.
Looks like this proposal is dead, at least for now. There was a pretty big groundswell against the idea.
http://tinyurl.com/rbpcf
makes you wonder how much longer the Smokies can be fee free.
makes you wonder how much longer the Smokies can be fee free.
Right now it's one of the few NP's without fees, but the fees are probably not far away. I'd rather see fees than the sale off of national forest lands, IF the fees would in fact stop the sale.
the goat
05-12-2006, 16:45
And how much of a tax break did the Repubs just vote this week for the super-uber-wealthy???
Rain Man-
Are you aware that: the top 50% of income earners pay 96.54% of ALL INCOME TAXES???
Are you further aware that: the top 1% of income earners pay 34.27% of ALL INCOME TAXES???
*Source: The United States Census Bureau.
Therefore if the "super-uber-wealthy" are shouldering the nation's tax burden, isn't that naturally where the breaks should go?
Therefore if the "super-uber-wealthy" are shouldering the nation's tax burden, isn't that naturally where the breaks should go?
It's hardly a burden for the super-uber-wealthy to pay their share of the taxes. They make way more than the average joe so they should pay way more as well.
Just a tad convoluted logic you got going there. The tax breaks should go to the people who are increasingly feeling the squeeze of inflation and falling behind. That would be the middle class, who, btw, shoulder most of the tax burden in this country. Look up your facts. If 34% is paid by the richest in the country, that means the majority of the tax is paid by the middle class. Amazing how statistics can be made to look any way you want them to look. The people paying the most tax in this country is the middle class, therefore, they should be the ones to get the tax break.
Aww darn, those rich folks may have to step down from their Cadillac Escalade to a Lexus now. Darn the luck.
Are you aware that: the top 50% of income earners pay 96.54% of ALL INCOME TAXES???
Therefore if the "super-uber-wealthy" are shouldering the nation's tax burden, isn't that naturally where the breaks should go?
You are absolutely right. Instead of the current system, we should tax the lower half of the income bracket like crazy. Those people making less than $44,000 (roughly the median income) are only paying 10 or 20% of their income to the government. Those welfare queens need to be paying 40 or 50% of their income in taxes so we can reduce taxes on the upper class.
If you make $1,000,000 a year in the U.S. it is your divine right to keep every penny you make and spend it on yachts, second homes, vacations, or whatever you want. People who are making just 20 or 30 thousand a year are lazy slobs and deserve to be poor.
After several failed attempts it has been found that share the wealth societies (socialism/communism) destroy the incentive to improve the lot of those governed. Who would want to live in China, Cuba, North Korea. It may not be perfect here but if anyone can think of a better country to live in I encourage the to move there.
not sure i understand economics or USFS or National Park Service issues at all...but i do know peole who make millions work for that and work smarter than me and I would be glad to have millions if I earned them or hit the lottery by pure chance.
bemoaning haves from the have nots is no biggy it goes on forever. Jesus said we would always have the poor with us. I actually appreciate the fact that some have risen above their upbringing....most people are not so sickly rich even when they have millions....just cause ya don't have em doesn't make it wrong for others to have it. Many of em proved inovative, lucky, smart, or just out and out good savers. Why would i bemoan that. I have taken my retirement every year since I was born. I get equally as much abuse for being a slacker.
its just how people have chosen to live. As the bemoaners...wahhhh
the goat
05-12-2006, 18:42
look all i'm saying is that if the poor aren't paying any taxes, how can they get a tax break?
i think your logic is convoluted.
Alligator
05-12-2006, 20:09
It's pretty f****** amazing to even consider a tax cut when we have a war bleeding the national treasury.
It's pretty f****** amazing to even consider a tax cut when we have a war bleeding the national treasury.
It's all part of Bush's master plan. Run the country into so much debt, the parks into ruin, we have to privitize our public lands. It's OK though, all his rich buddies (with their tax breaks) will buy them up, rape them for what they're worth and double the fees to see the rubble.
Oh by the way, according to the original agreement, the Rockefeller's put up half the purchase price of the GSMNP under the stipulation it always be free.
Jack Tarlin
05-12-2006, 23:23
Geez, what a witless post, Sly.
Let's consider that I traversed the Smokies from 1995 to 2006 with only one year missing, 1996. (And probably, so did you).
Bill Clinton and Al Gore, the alleged greatest environmental team in history, ran things in Washington between January 1993 and January 2001.
Among other things, they ran the National Park Service.
Were conditions any better in Great Smoky Mountain National Park or Shenandoah National Park in the years I traversed them?
Nope.
In fact, they were worse.
I saw conditions DETERIORATE in GSMNP and Shenandoah every year during the Clinton-Gore years, Sly....and so did anyone else who visited.
Let's be honest: The neglect of our National Parks is a National disgrace, and blaming it on a Bush "master plan" or Republican neglect is a bull****, false argument.
A great "environmental team" ran the parks from 1993 to 2001.
A team you've praised here, Sly, a zillion times.
They didn't do jack****.
The blame in our Parks is shameful, and should be shared equally.
.........I saw conditions DETERIORATE in GSMNP and Shenandoah every year during the Clinton-Gore years............
I'll have to agree with that!
Alligator
05-12-2006, 23:38
So, how do you feel about the tax cut Jack?
Geez, what a witless post, Sly.
Let's consider that I traversed the Smokies from 1995 to 2006 with only one year missing, 1996. (And probably, so did you).
Bill Clinton and Al Gore,
When in doubt, go for the "It's Clinton's fault" defense. Yeah OK Jack. It's obviously for God knows what reason, you'll be one of the 20% supporters when 4/5 of the people realize what a lying, deceiving snot GWB and company really are.
LIhikers
05-13-2006, 09:48
Actually I think the decline of the parks, on the national, state, county and local levels, can be blamed on the attitude of "we the people". It seems to me that most folks in the USA would want undeveloped land paved over with a shopping mall built on it. They'd rather pay to work out in an airconditioned gym than to join us for a hike in the wonder and beauty of nature. The various levels of government are just reflecting the attitude of the people.
I honestly believe that we hikers are part of a small minority of outdoor enthusiasts here in the USA. Until preserving the outdoors becomes a priority for the population in general it won't become a priority for governments. That's just my 2 cents worth. Do with it what you will.
Cookerhiker
05-13-2006, 10:18
....I saw conditions DETERIORATE in GSMNP and Shenandoah every year during the Clinton-Gore years, Sly....and so did anyone else who visited....The blame in our Parks is shameful, and should be shared equally.
I haven't been the Smokies that often, but I have visited Shenandaoh every year including the years you mentioned. I agree the deterioration is noticable, to a point.
Much of Shenandoah's deterioration is air quality - reduced visibility & increased haze. I imagine the Smokies have had similar issues. The Clinton administration's major clean air initiative was the "new source review" to take on companies who exploited loopholes in the original Clean Air Act to make major changes to their older facilities without installing anti-pollution controls. The Bush adminstration rescinded the new source rules.
And let's not forget the government shutdown led by Newt Gingerich was caused by -among other things - riders to the FY 96 appropriations which prevented the Adminstration from enforcing the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and other environmental actions. What's become a classic Republican technique - sneaking these provisions into a must-pass appropriations bill without public hearings or debate - proved unsuccessful since Clinton had veto power. And environmental issues (along with education) were the primary reasons for his vetoes and the subsequent shutdowns. I worked for EPA at the time and remember the times well.
Re. national parks, the California desert parks (Death Valley, Joshua Tree, Mojave) acquired protection during Clinton's first 2 years (the only years he had a Democratic Congress). He also set aside the Grand Staircase/Escalante area of Utah as a National Monument and kept the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from being drilled.
Yes notwithstanding my above points, I certainly agree that Clinton/Gore could have done more for national parks. But do you think that if they came forth with a comprehensive NPS plan including funding and necessary environmental safeguards, the Newt Congress would have given them a chance?
Geez, what a witless post, Sly.
Let's consider that I traversed the Smokies from 1995 to 2006 with only one year missing, 1996. (And probably, so did you).
Bill Clinton and Al Gore, the alleged greatest environmental team in history, ran things in Washington between January 1993 and January 2001.
Among other things, they ran the National Park Service.
Were conditions any better in Great Smoky Mountain National Park or Shenandoah National Park in the years I traversed them?
Nope.
In fact, they were worse.
I saw conditions DETERIORATE in GSMNP and Shenandoah every year during the Clinton-Gore years, Sly....and so did anyone else who visited.
Let's be honest: The neglect of our National Parks is a National disgrace, and blaming it on a Bush "master plan" or Republican neglect is a bull****, false argument.
A great "environmental team" ran the parks from 1993 to 2001.
A team you've praised here, Sly, a zillion times.
They didn't do jack****.
The blame in our Parks is shameful, and should be shared equally.
Keep in mind Jack that Clinton-Gore dealt with REpublican Congresses. Bush-Cheney have the luxury of a REpublican Congress.
Clinton-Gore managed to balance the budget.
Bush-Cheney borrows -- inxluding great sums from places like China and India -- the money it needs to run the war in Iraq, while at the same time granting tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans.
Weary
Cookerhiker
05-26-2006, 15:59
More about the Adminstration's plans for cutting funding and services in National Parks. Oh well, we have to cut taxes and curb "big government" don't we, except of course for fighting terrorism and boosting "homeland security." I guess we can blame the terrorists for this also. Perish the thought of raising taxes to pay for a program (Parks) that 96% of the American public (the Administration's own figures) support.
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=673
More about the Adminstration's plans for cutting funding and services in National Parks. Oh well, we have to cut taxes and curb "big government" don't we, except of course for fighting terrorism and boosting "homeland security." I guess we can blame the terrorists for this also. Perish the thought of raising taxes to pay for a program (Parks) that 96% of the American public (the Administration's own figures) support.
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=673
“Rather than being honest about planned budget cuts, the Bush administration once again makes stealth policy decisions cloaked by management reform mumbo jumbo,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “If our national parks are going to be reduced to performing only the bare minimum of ‘core operations’ the public ought to be given some say as to what is considered essential.”
the goat
05-26-2006, 17:19
i don't know a/b the worst, but he is pretty f'ing bad!
i don't know a/b the worst, but he is pretty f'ing bad!
LOL... Hey Goat, missed you at Trail Days.
I finally got to meet bfitz aka "The Dude" although I remembered his face from years past and others from Whiteblaze. Fun times....
the goat
05-26-2006, 19:21
LOL... Hey Goat, missed you at Trail Days.
I finally got to meet bfitz aka "The Dude" although I remembered his face from years past and others from Whiteblaze. Fun times....
yeah dude, i actually had just returned from 2 weeks in italy (which was actually a 14 day bender) and i had too much ***** to do when i got back......alas, i've been pretty jealous reading all the stories, already looking forward to next year!
You are absolutely right. Instead of the current system, we should tax the lower half of the income bracket like crazy. Those people making less than $44,000 (roughly the median income) are only paying 10 or 20% of their income to the government. Those welfare queens need to be paying 40 or 50% of their income in taxes so we can reduce taxes on the upper class.
If you make $1,000,000 a year in the U.S. it is your divine right to keep every penny you make and spend it on yachts, second homes, vacations, or whatever you want. People who are making just 20 or 30 thousand a year are lazy slobs and deserve to be poor.
OK. So let me get this straight Burger. I bust my a** for $24,000/year and I'm a lazy slob, welfare queen, and deserve to be poor? What an a**hole thing to say. Some people are not as lucky to be slamming down $100 dinners and mega tax breaks. People making less than $44,000 are generally trying to make ends meet and your president (I didn't vote for the f***er) isn't making things any easier, except for the the rich. I generally try to stay out of the politics ring, but couldn't hold back on this one. Cheers from the land of Welfare, West Virginia!
NINpigNIN
05-26-2006, 21:25
Right now it's one of the few NP's without fees, but the fees are probably not far away.
If memory serves, the reason why GSMNP is free is that it was part of the agreement from when the federal government purchased the land. Besides the fact that Congress can always figure out a way to pass a law to get around it, I don't they can start charging admission.
The only thing I know to do about "lack of funds" and "cutting back" is to ask yourself the simple question- Democrat, Republican, or Green? I've got family that works for GSMNP, republican family, unlike me, and even they think laxed laws will be the downfall of our park system. Maybe if someone from a environmental awareness industry started paying out to a Bush, instead of the oil industry, we might see some ligit and decent policy for once in this administrations history! Maybe I'm just bitter but at least I'm not stupid- guess it just figures that I'm a Biology/Naturalist major in North Carolina.
P.S. If you want to see laxed environmental policy, come to Tennessee- start in Johnson City and go west and south! Trash has to touch the sky before its considered an issue to the environment- maybe I'll change this one day.
:-? NATE...
After several failed attempts it has been found that share the wealth societies (socialism/communism) destroy the incentive to improve the lot of those governed. Who would want to live in China, Cuba, North Korea. It may not be perfect here but if anyone can think of a better country to live in I encourage the to move there.
How far are we from a socalist/dictatorship and a communist society when this nations powerful elite controls all? Then recieves incentive to control all! Tax hikes are inevitable due to the huge deficit created in part by tax cuts. Tell me honestly now, are ethics or stupidity administered here... :-?
Economics 101: Tax cuts fuel economic growth and actually generate revenue. Tax cuts did not create the deficit, irresponsible spending on big government programs did. So I give the President an A+ for the tax breaks but an F for big gov't spending.
Incidentally, "Rich People" are the ones who own businesses, take the risks and create jobs. I am not one of these "Rich People".
Now, I will agree with some of what's being said. I am a fiscal conservative and do feel betrayed by the Republicans in Congress and the President.
However, I haven't heard the dems offer anything better, just negative, drive-by sound bites.
Hmm, I doubt and 18 year old is qualified to call folks stupid when he is still wet behind the ears himself.
Not sure who taught your Econ. 101, but for every economist you find, you'll find a different economic theory. This is a most inexact "science" at best. Ex. neo-liberal economic development plans, structural adjustment programs (SAPS) once shoved down developing countries throats by international finanaical institutions such as the World Bank are now eschewed by those very same organizations b/c they have been disastorous.
"Rich people" may own the businesses, which are of course, often heavily subsidisized by the taxpayers, but the rest of us are the ones who actually do the work that produces the product, that we eventually buy. This notion that "rich people" work harder than poor as evidenced by their wealth ignores the reality that most "rich people" inherit their wealth or the social advantages that make wealth accumulation possible, ex. our current president. Sure some people amass their own wealth, ex. Gates, but of course, w/o the government, taxpayers, inventing, no not Gore, but the DOD, the internet, where would Gates be? Are you really saying firefighters, and other "non-rich" don't work hard? or aren't smart?
Re:the post that only the rich pay taxes, ignores the multitude of regressive taxes we all pay, ex. federal excise taxes. Federal income tax is not the only tax we pay. There are so many other federal taxes.
Not sure who dubbed Clinton/Gore the "environmental team" but it wasn't environmentalists. Though many were happy after 12 years of Reagan/Bush stewardship. Who could forget James Watt as Sec. of the Interior? I do remain fascinated by the fact that any time this admin. is critisized, the response is to drag out the "but what about Clinton" defense. Weary's point is well taken, Clinton enjoyed only 2 years of dem. control of congress, while Bush has had republican control of the house for his entire Presidency, and control of Senate for most of his presidency. Result: a devastating debt that has left us vulnerable to China (among others) who owns a good chunk of our debt (guess those commies aren't so commie), an ever expanding government whose reach into our personal lives is terrifying to most of us, an imperial presidency that even house republicans complain about, and a disasterous foreign policy that has left thousands of americans dead and wounded and thousands more civilians dead and wounded and our reputation in tatters.
Not sure about this supposed economic growth we've seen. As a state employee in Georgia, my annual compensation has not even come close to keeping up with inflation, while gas and health care prices continue to rise well above annual inflation rates. I keep waiting for this trickle down growth to make it down to me, but, alas, so far nothing.
Economics 101: Tax cuts fuel economic growth and actually generate revenue. Tax cuts did not create the deficit, irresponsible spending on big government programs did. So I give the President an A+ for the tax breaks but an F for big gov't spending.
Incidentally, "Rich People" are the ones who own businesses, take the risks and create jobs. I am not one of these "Rich People".
Now, I will agree with some of what's being said. I am a fiscal conservative and do feel betrayed by the Republicans in Congress and the President.
However, I haven't heard the dems offer anything better, just negative, drive-by sound bites. .
Real fiscal conservatives recognize that except in unusal times, taxes should cover the cost of government. Borrowing money to grant tax cuts is fiscal insanity as we all shall realize one of these years.
There is no mystery to the present "prosperity." What economics 101 really tells us is that if you borrow money and spend it on producing weapons, roads, parks or whatever, you put people to work. The crunch comes when you have to pay the money back.
We currently have the most irresponsible national government in many decades -- perhaps in American history. With massive Social Security bills about to come due, we should be saving, not borrowing.
As for Democratic "sound bites," Clinton balanced the budget and began repaying the national debt. Bush has borrowed more money than all previous presidents put together.
We used to argue that debt doesn't matter because "we only owe it to ourselves." That is no longer true. China has lent us much of the money that we spent giving tax breaks mostly to the wealthiest of Americans, many of whom in turn spent the nation's largess building factories and jobs in China. I can't think of a more incompetent and irresponsible way of dealing with a dictatorship -- and from a president fond of babbling about the importance of promoting "Democracy."
Weary
CaptChaos
05-30-2006, 11:58
Hello All:
Well, I have to say the following before I start. I headed off to college to be a park ranger but I ended up in Information Systems instead but I do have a love for the park service. Also, my own experiences are with the Mammouth Cave National Park and the GSMNP.
With that said, you have to understand that losing any more resources in the area of park information rangers to visitors is not going to hurt a thing. Since the Pres. Carter years the park service was turned from what we all know was a great service to a police agency. And with that, the ways of the park service changed in my mind.
As for the park service today, I know that here we have Mammouth Cave National Park and while some of the rangers know a little bit about the park most do not. Below are two cases in point:
Case 1:
Having lived next to this park for the last 16 years and having been brought to this park since I was 9, I am now 49, I know a little bit about the history of the park and the story of Floyd Collins.
While on a trip to the park with my son a visitor asked where the cave was that Floyd Colins died at back in the days before the park. The ranger told the visitor that Floyd Collins did not die in the park or anywhere near the park but it was somewhere else maybe in the State.
I was shocked. I asked the ranger where she lived and she told me that it was around Cave City, KY. You take the road from Cave City to get into the park. I asked the ranger if she ever saw the parking lot for Sand Cave on her way to work. She told me "Yes". Well, I had to tell her that "Sand Cave" is where Floyd Collins did die and the NPS has a steel gate on the entrance to keep people out. She did not like my response to that one at all.
Case 2:
On another trip to the park I was asking a young ranger how the snowball dining room restoration was going. She looked at me and said what room? I said the "SnowBall dining room". She had never heard of it and had been a ranger there for three years and had never seen it. Amazing.
I have said this before and it was published in a mag years ago when I did a letter to the editor, but it is time to let the private sector do the tours and let the park service do what they think they can do best which is manage the parks resources and be a police agency.
As for fees: Why not. Many of you will remember when the smokies had a flood that took out parts of the road in the GSMNP. It was this way for a long time because there was no money from the government to fix the "d**m" road. A fee system might have helped to get the funds necessary to do the road repair but the thing you have to remember here is that all fees collected go into the general fund first and not to the parks. It is done this way at GSMNP and at Mammouth Cave National Park. So unless it changes, charging fees will not help the NPS system in any way.
I have told this story before but I will do so again.
When I was a child of age 9 I was taken to Mammouth Cave for a family trip. In the mens room was a urinal that was the second from the right of a row of them. It was out of order. For years as a child, when I went there it was always out of order. I took my dates to Mammouth Cave and again it was out of order. I got married and took my own son to Mammouth Cave and it was out of order. Now at age 49, I think that a year ago they now have funding to fix the visitor center and do some repairs. What a joke.
I would pay a fee if I had to at GSMNP or Mammouth Cave if it would go to the park in question. But until they change things giving them money is not going to change anything.
One more note, on the subject of taxes. They are never a good point to talk about. I grew up in Ohio and at age 7 or 8 I was taken to a lawyers office and asked to sign my name. I had a great aunt that had left me money to go to college and I had to pay taxes on it. It was not until I was told after college that on that day when I signed my name I paid the State of Ohio over 80K in taxes. I went to a state school in KY and when I got out I had about 10K left. Taxes leave a bad taste in my mouth because I have been there. They are unfair and not dealt out fairly. Make it a flat tax for everyone and be done with it. At least we could all share the pain together.
Capt Chaos
Cookerhiker
05-30-2006, 20:50
I'm not doubting your experiences but I don't agree with your assessment of the Park Service as "police" only and I most strongly take issue with your suggestion that tours be turned over to the private sector. Last spring I participated in a Sierra Club project at Saguaro NP where we assisted the Park staff with a census of the giant saguaros. The Saguaro park folks were knowedgable, dedicated, competent, and not the least bit "police" like. Furthermore, I have a good friend/hiking partner who's a seasonal ranger at Big South Fork. She does programs for visitors and again, is competent and dedicated. She's not one to gripe but the budget cuts are affecting her work now, a fact she laments.
The park service budget cuts are real and having a real impact as attested in many previous posts. And polls consistently show public support for strong national parks. Unfortunately, not enough politicians are making an issue of it. Of course, the rightwing thinktanks which exert such undue influence on the Republican party these days have no use for national parks; if anything, they resent the NPS for running a federal program that enjoys a borad spectrum of public support.
Green Bean
05-30-2006, 22:15
"Millions of visitors to national parks across the country this summer will find higher fees, closed facilities, reduced maintenance and fewer rangers to explain the natural wonders because of the squeeze of tight budgets.
"From Maine to California, park managers are struggling with higher fixed costs and operating budgets that haven't kept pace with inflation.:-?
"A study of 12 popular parks issued last month by the
Government Accountability Office, Congress' investigative arm, found that eight weren't getting enough funds to keep up with inflation:-? , and all 12 were cutting services, including "visitor center hours, educational programs, basic custodial duties and law enforcement."
"As park spending power is eroded by inflation:-? and rising costs for salaries and other expenses, Latschar says he's not changing oil filters as much as he should at his Civil War battlefield park.
INFLATION: Everyone trys to keep up with it. Some fail to succeed. Hopefully this is not the case with the National Parks. If they neeed to boost up prices to keep the beautiful land that the US gives us and to keep up with inflation. DO so! Whats going to happen when us Citizens of the US and Visitors to the US just don't feel like paying the 30 bucks to be able to enjoy a day or maybe pay more money to stay for a night or two and To just see what could be ruined in just days by todays technology. Just a thought.
Inflation. Parks need to make money to stay up and running. Ok. What should we do?:-? Raise fees. Excellent idea. Me personally couldn't really think up ofa better Idea to make more money. ~GB
shades of blue
05-30-2006, 22:44
Why should I pay higher fees when I already pay taxes. Parks are owned "by the people". Our tax monies (along with some great grants) bought this land. It continues to support these parks. Republicans are supposed to be great "adults" which don't spend what they don't have. You can't say though...we don't have enough money to spend on health care, national parks, clean air, social security et al....then spend oodles on other things, and cut taxes for the uber rich.... I'm sorry, that's not how you balance your budget. If the poor and middle class must suffer...so must the wealthy. If you want to cut taxes, balance the budget first, restrain spending...then and only then should you cut taxes for the top 1% of the country. And yes, I'm proud to be an American...and a Liberal...you can be both you know. :)
Rain Man
05-30-2006, 23:18
... Make it a flat tax for everyone and be done with it. At least we could all share the pain together.
I'm ALWAYS curious when people throw around the phrase "flat tax." What's supposed to be "flat"?
Personally, I like the idea of a flat tax, but I've yet to see one proposed, only flat tax rates. And that's as bogus as all get-out and not a real flat tax in the least.
Rain:sunMan
.
CaptChaos
05-30-2006, 23:50
Well, thank you guys for your comments concerning what I said about the park service in regards to Mammouth Cave National Park and the GSMNP. My experience has been with these two a lot longer than the others.
That is what I like about this forum, we can agree or disagree and still have the love of backpacking.
I can remember Rangers when I was a kid who would talk for hours after a tour to let you know the history and what was going on in the park. I have not seen that kind of dedication for years. Not to say that it is still not done as that would be using a wide brush on everything but I have seen a difference in the park service from when I was in school in 1975 to today.
Thanks again for not flaming me but allowng me to express my views on the subject.
Later guys.